Re: Some amusing search engine poisoning

[James Kerr]

Will do then.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Webster  wrote:

> James, you should also look up the late Lewis Grizzard.  He was absolutely
> hilarious.
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Webster
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Subject:* Re: Some amusing search engine poisoning
>
> ** **
>
> I don't, but having just Googled him, I have just realised that all the
> material in the book that I am writing (currently eight years of work, and
> counting) is probably pretty unoriginal. :-(
>
> On 11 July 2011 14:00, Tom Miller  wrote:
>
> Fantastic disclaimer.  Do you know Dave Barry...?
>
> >>> James Rankin  7/11/2011 8:53 AM >>>
>
>
>
> http://www.securitynewsportal.com/cgi-bin/news555.cgi?target=A/505643969?-2622&securitynews=Searching%20for%20Google%20Chrome%20on%20Bing%20Leads%20to%20Malware
> 
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
>
> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Some amusing search engine poisoning

[Erik Goldoff]

My Daddy was a pistol, and I'm a son-of-a-gun
Shoot Low boys, they're riding Shetland ponies !

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Webster  wrote:

> James, you should also look up the late Lewis Grizzard.  He was absolutely
> hilarious.
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Webster
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Subject:* Re: Some amusing search engine poisoning
>
> ** **
>
> I don't, but having just Googled him, I have just realised that all the
> material in the book that I am writing (currently eight years of work, and
> counting) is probably pretty unoriginal. :-(
>
> On 11 July 2011 14:00, Tom Miller  wrote:
>
> Fantastic disclaimer.  Do you know Dave Barry...?
>
> >>> James Rankin  7/11/2011 8:53 AM >>>
>
>
>
> http://www.securitynewsportal.com/cgi-bin/news555.cgi?target=A/505643969?-2622&securitynews=Searching%20for%20Google%20Chrome%20on%20Bing%20Leads%20to%20Malware
> 
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
>
> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Some amusing search engine poisoning

[Webster]

James, you should also look up the late Lewis Grizzard.  He was absolutely
hilarious.

 

 

Webster

 

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Subject: Re: Some amusing search engine poisoning

 

I don't, but having just Googled him, I have just realised that all the
material in the book that I am writing (currently eight years of work, and
counting) is probably pretty unoriginal. :-(

On 11 July 2011 14:00, Tom Miller  wrote:

Fantastic disclaimer.  Do you know Dave Barry...?

>>> James Rankin  7/11/2011 8:53 AM >>>


http://www.securitynewsportal.com/cgi-bin/news555.cgi?target=A/505643969?-26
22
<http://www.securitynewsportal.com/cgi-bin/news555.cgi?target=A/505643969?-2
622&securitynews=Searching%20for%20Google%20Chrome%20on%20Bing%20Leads%20to%
20Malware>
&securitynews=Searching%20for%20Google%20Chrome%20on%20Bing%20Leads%20to%20M
alware


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Some amusing search engine poisoning

[James Kerr]

Dave Barry is one funny guy.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:04 AM, James Rankin  wrote:

> I don't, but having just Googled him, I have just realised that all the
> material in the book that I am writing (currently eight years of work, and
> counting) is probably pretty unoriginal. :-(
>
>
> On 11 July 2011 14:00, Tom Miller  wrote:
>
>> Fantastic disclaimer.  Do you know Dave Barry...?
>>
>> >>> James Rankin  7/11/2011 8:53 AM >>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.securitynewsportal.com/cgi-bin/news555.cgi?target=A/505643969?-2622&securitynews=Searching%20for%20Google%20Chrome%20on%20Bing%20Leads%20to%20Malware
>>
>> --
>> "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."
>>
>> ** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
>>
>> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is
>> addressed. If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to
>> you and therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
>> However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
>> probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
>> mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
>> destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
>> this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
>> because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
>> afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. *
>>
>> *The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
>> information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's a
>> pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
>> should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
>> and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
>> if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
>> liability for transmission.
>> *
>>
>> *In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
>> please return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's
>> brother's wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately
>> refund you exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought
>> when you went to Pets** **At Home yesterday. *
>>
>> *We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
>> running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
>> event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
>> responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or
>> implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of receiving,
>> or not, as the case may be, from time to time, notwithstanding all
>> liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, hell, where was I...umm, no matter
>> what happens, it is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR FAULT! *
>>
>> *The comments and opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of
>> my employer, who, if he knew I was sending emails and surfing the seamier
>> side of the Internet, would cut off my manhood and feed it to me for
>> afternoon tea. *
>>
>>
>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
>> ~   ~
>>
>> ---
>> To manage subscriptions click here:
>> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
>> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
>> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>>
>>  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! ~
>> ~   ~
>>
>> ---
>> To manage subscriptions click here:
>> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
>> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
>> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "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."
>
> ** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
>
> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed.
> If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
> therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
> However, if the contents of this email

Re: Some amusing search engine poisoning

[James Rankin]

I don't, but having just Googled him, I have just realised that all the
material in the book that I am writing (currently eight years of work, and
counting) is probably pretty unoriginal. :-(

On 11 July 2011 14:00, Tom Miller  wrote:

> Fantastic disclaimer.  Do you know Dave Barry...?
>
> >>> James Rankin  7/11/2011 8:53 AM >>>
>
>
> http://www.securitynewsportal.com/cgi-bin/news555.cgi?target=A/505643969?-2622&securitynews=Searching%20for%20Google%20Chrome%20on%20Bing%20Leads%20to%20Malware
>
> --
> "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."
>
> ** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
>
> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed.
> If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
> therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
> However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
> probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
> mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
> destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
> this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
> because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
> afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. *
>
> *The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
> information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's a
> pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
> should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
> and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
> if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
> liability for transmission.
> *
>
> *In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
> please return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's
> brother's wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately
> refund you exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought
> when you went to Pets** **At Home yesterday. *
>
> *We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
> running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
> event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
> responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or
> implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of receiving,
> or not, as the case may be, from time to time, notwithstanding all
> liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, hell, where was I...umm, no matter
> what happens, it is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR FAULT! *
>
> *The comments and opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of my
> employer, who, if he knew I was sending emails and surfing the seamier side
> of the Internet, would cut off my manhood and feed it to me for afternoon
> tea. *
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>  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! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>



-- 
"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."

** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *

This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed.
If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
destroy your computer (not

Re: Some amusing search engine poisoning

[Tom Miller]

Fantastic disclaimer.  Do you know Dave Barry...?

>>> James Rankin  7/11/2011 8:53 AM >>>
http://www.securitynewsportal.com/cgi-bin/news555.cgi?target=A/505643969?-2622&securitynews=Searching%20for%20Google%20Chrome%20on%20Bing%20Leads%20to%20Malware

-- 
"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."

* IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *

This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed. If 
you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and therefore 
you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you. However, if the 
contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you probably were not the 
intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a mindless cretin; either way, 
you should immediately kill yourself and destroy your computer (not necessarily 
in that order). Once you have taken this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, 
you can't use your computer, because you just destroyed it, and possibly also 
committed suicide afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. 
The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the 
information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's a 
pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But should 
you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it, and please 
pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However, if you pass 
them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding liability for 
transmission.

In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then please 
return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's brother's wife 
wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately refund you exactly 
half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought when you went to Pets 
At Home yesterday. 
We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are running 
Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the event that you 
do get this message then please note that we take no responsibility for that 
either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or implied, for any damage you 
may or may not incur as a result of receiving, or not, as the case may be, from 
time to time, notwithstanding all liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, hell, 
where was I...umm, no matter what happens, it is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR 
FAULT! 
The comments and opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of my 
employer, who, if he knew I was sending emails and surfing the seamier side of 
the Internet, would cut off my manhood and feed it to me for afternoon tea. 


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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
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! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Some amusing search engine poisoning

[James Rankin]

http://www.securitynewsportal.com/cgi-bin/news555.cgi?target=A/505643969?-2622&securitynews=Searching%20for%20Google%20Chrome%20on%20Bing%20Leads%20to%20Malware

-- 
"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."

** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *

This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed.
If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. *

* The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's a
pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
liability for transmission.
*

* In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
please return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's
brother's wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately
refund you exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought
when you went to Pets** ** At Home yesterday. *

* We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or
implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of receiving,
or not, as the case may be, from time to time, notwithstanding all
liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, hell, where was I...umm, no matter
what happens, it is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR FAULT! *

* The comments and opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of my
employer, who, if he knew I was sending emails and surfing the seamier side
of the Internet, would cut off my manhood and feed it to me for afternoon
tea. *

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff

[Jon Harris]

Not just Corporate but a lot of this happens in government as well.

Jon

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Ziots, Edward  wrote:

>  Heck Don, 
>
> ** **
>
> That is corporate America these days, and its been going on soo long that
> people seem to get away with it over and over, its kinda gross. 
>
> ** **
>
> Sincerely
>
> EZ
>
> ** **
>
> Edward E. Ziots
>
> CISSP, Network +, Security +
>
> Security Engineer
>
> Lifespan Organization
>
> Email:ezi...@lifespan.org
>
> Cell:401-639-3505
>
> [image: CISSP_logo]
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Guyer, Don [mailto:don.gu...@fiserv.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 08, 2011 10:59 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: OT: Amusing legal stuff
>
>  ** **
>
> I’m sorry; I have a big problem with that. It’s Friday, I’m gonna refrain
> from ranting over that, so I don’t ruin my weekend…..
>
> ** **
>
> J
>
> ** **
>
> I’ll just say I have no tolerance for people that “misbehave” and then pull
> a redirect, blaming it on someone/something else.
>
> ** **
>
> *Don Guyer*
>
> Windows Systems Engineer
>
> RIM Operations Engineering Distributed – A Team, Tier 2
>
> Enterprise Technology Group
>
> *Fiserv*
>
> don.gu...@fiserv.com
>
> Office: 1-800-523-7282 x 1673
>
> Fax: 610-233-0404
>
> www.fiserv.com
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 08, 2011 10:54 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff
>
> ** **
>
> Constructive dismissali.e. he claims he was put in a position where he
> had no choice but to resign.
>
> On 8 July 2011 15:41, Guyer, Don  wrote:
>
> How can one “resign” and then turn around and claim “dismissal”?
>
>  
>
> “Yeah, I quit….wait I was fired unfairly”…?
>
>  
>
> Maybe I’m missing something here.
>
>  
>
> *Don Guyer*
>
> Windows Systems Engineer
>
> RIM Operations Engineering Distributed – A Team, Tier 2
>
> Enterprise Technology Group
>
> *Fiserv*
>
> don.gu...@fiserv.com
>
> Office: 1-800-523-7282 x 1673
>
> Fax: 610-233-0404
>
> www.fiserv.com
>
>  
>
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 08, 2011 7:48 AM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff
>
>  
>
> Maybe I should have said the legal systembut clearly whoever sits on
> these tribunals must have been taken in by this guy's nonsensical verbiage.
> Either that or our solicitors are useless.
>
>
>
> Basically this guy was placed under suspension and investigated for
> spending all day on his blog instead of working. So he resigned. And claimed
> constructive unfair dismissal. And won. I'm waiting to see the final
> recommendations of the tribunal and find out whether the technical issues he
> put in front of the tribunal had any bearing on the verdict. I'm hoping they
> didn't.
>
> On 8 July 2011 12:42, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:
>
> Which part of the justice system failed here?
>
> 
>
>  
>
> *ASB*
>
> *http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker*
>
> *Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market…*
>
> ** **
>
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:02 AM, James Rankin 
> wrote:
>
> Well I have lost all faith in the justice system. This guy won his case for
> unfair dismissal. He is now awaiting compensation.
>
> ** **
>
> On 1 July 2011 14:58, James Rankin  wrote:
>
> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen truly
> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
>
> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in his
> words, "*optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix*", that the
> records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using Internet
> Explorer.
>
> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a "*dual-processor
> Mac*", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate, as
> the Mac "*works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
> henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
> Windows or Microsoft software*"
>
> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
>

Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff

[Jonathan Link]

So that's like 95% of people.

On Friday, July 8, 2011, Guyer, Don  wrote:
> I’m sorry; I have a big problem with that. It’s Friday, I’m gonna refrain 
> from ranting over that, so I don’t ruin my weekend….. J I’ll just say I have 
> no tolerance for people that “misbehave” and then pull a redirect, blaming it 
> on someone/something else. Don GuyerWindows Systems EngineerRIM Operations 
> Engineering Distributed – A Team, Tier 2Enterprise Technology 
> GroupFiservdon.guyer@fiserv.comOffice: 1-800-523-7282 x 1673Fax: 
> 610-233-0404www.fiserv.com From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 10:54 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff Constructive dismissali.e. he claims 
> he was put in a position where he had no choice but to resign.On 8 July 2011 
> 15:41, Guyer, Don  wrote:How can one “resign” and then 
> turn around and claim “dismissal”? “Yeah, I quit….wait I was fired 
> unfairly”…? Maybe I’m missing something here. Don GuyerWindows Systems 
> EngineerRIM Operations Engineering Distributed – A Team, Tier 2Enterprise 
> Technology GroupFiservdon.guyer@fiserv.comOffice: 1-800-523-7282 x 1673Fax: 
> 610-233-0404www.fiserv.com From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 7:48 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff Maybe I should have said the legal 
> systembut clearly whoever sits on these tribunals must have been taken in 
> by this guy's nonsensical verbiage. Either that or our solicitors are useless.
>
> Basically this guy was placed under suspension and investigated for spending 
> all day on his blog instead of working. So he resigned. And claimed 
> constructive unfair dismissal. And won. I'm waiting to see the final 
> recommendations of the tribunal and find out whether the technical issues he 
> put in front of the tribunal had any bearing on the verdict. I'm hoping they 
> didn't.On 8 July 2011 12:42, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:Which 
> part of the justice system failed here?
>  ASBhttp://about.me/Andrew.S.BakerHarnessing the Advantages of Technology for 
> the SMB market…
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here: 
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: OT: Amusing legal stuff

[RichardMcClary]

If I remember all correctly, this is probably corporate Britland as well 
now.
--
richard

"Ziots, Edward"  wrote on 07/08/2011 10:33:41 AM:

> Heck Don, 
> 
> That is corporate America these days, and its been going on soo long
> that people seem to get away with it over and over, its kinda gross. 
> 
> Sincerely
> EZ
> 
> Edward E. Ziots
> CISSP, Network +, Security +
> Security Engineer
> Lifespan Organization
> Email:ezi...@lifespan.org
> Cell:401-639-3505
> [image removed] 
> 
> From: Guyer, Don [mailto:don.gu...@fiserv.com] 
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 10:59 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: Amusing legal stuff
> 
> I?m sorry; I have a big problem with that. It?s Friday, I?m gonna 
> refrain from ranting over that, so I don?t ruin my weekend?..
> 
> J
> 
> I?ll just say I have no tolerance for people that ?misbehave? and 
> then pull a redirect, blaming it on someone/something else.
> 
> Don Guyer
> Windows Systems Engineer
> RIM Operations Engineering Distributed ? A Team, Tier 2
> Enterprise Technology Group
> Fiserv
> don.gu...@fiserv.com
> Office: 1-800-523-7282 x 1673
> Fax: 610-233-0404
> www.fiserv.com
> 
> From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 10:54 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff
> 
> Constructive dismissali.e. he claims he was put in a position 
> where he had no choice but to resign.
> On 8 July 2011 15:41, Guyer, Don  wrote:
> How can one ?resign? and then turn around and claim ?dismissal??
> 
> ?Yeah, I quit?.wait I was fired unfairly???
> 
> Maybe I?m missing something here.
> 
> Don Guyer
> Windows Systems Engineer
> RIM Operations Engineering Distributed ? A Team, Tier 2
> Enterprise Technology Group
> Fiserv
> don.gu...@fiserv.com
> Office: 1-800-523-7282 x 1673
> Fax: 610-233-0404
> www.fiserv.com
> 
> From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 7:48 AM
> 
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff
> 
> Maybe I should have said the legal systembut clearly whoever 
> sits on these tribunals must have been taken in by this guy's 
> nonsensical verbiage. Either that or our solicitors are useless.
> 
> 
> Basically this guy was placed under suspension and investigated for 
> spending all day on his blog instead of working. So he resigned. And
> claimed constructive unfair dismissal. And won. I'm waiting to see 
> the final recommendations of the tribunal and find out whether the 
> technical issues he put in front of the tribunal had any bearing on 
> the verdict. I'm hoping they didn't.
> On 8 July 2011 12:42, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:
> Which part of the justice system failed here?

> 
> 
> ASB
> 
> http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker
> 
> Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market?
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:02 AM, James Rankin  
wrote:
> Well I have lost all faith in the justice system. This guy won his 
> case for unfair dismissal. He is now awaiting compensation.
> 
> On 1 July 2011 14:58, James Rankin  wrote:
> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has 
> risen truly make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a 
> dangerous thing"...
> 
> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, 
> in his words, "optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix",
> that the records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was 
> not using Internet Explorer.
> 
> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a "dual-
> processor Mac", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are
> inaccurate, as the Mac "works faster and more efficiently than 
> Windows machines, and henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot 
> be accurately recorded by Windows or Microsoft software"
> 
> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a 
> contributory factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "The 
> processing time used by the technologies deployed at work, such as 
> Group Policy, AppSense, and ISA Server, create an inaccurate 
> representation of my browsing time, as the pages load and unload 
> slower than they would on, for instance, my dual-processor Mac, 
> therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and inadmissible"
> 
> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal 
> that he actually knows what he is talking about.
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resourc

RE: OT: Amusing legal stuff

[Ziots, Edward]

Heck Don, 

 

That is corporate America these days, and its been going on soo long
that people seem to get away with it over and over, its kinda gross. 

 

Sincerely

EZ

 

Edward E. Ziots

CISSP, Network +, Security +

Security Engineer

Lifespan Organization

Email:ezi...@lifespan.org

Cell:401-639-3505

 

 

From: Guyer, Don [mailto:don.gu...@fiserv.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 10:59 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: Amusing legal stuff

 

I'm sorry; I have a big problem with that. It's Friday, I'm gonna
refrain from ranting over that, so I don't ruin my weekend.

 

J

 

I'll just say I have no tolerance for people that "misbehave" and then
pull a redirect, blaming it on someone/something else.

 

Don Guyer

Windows Systems Engineer

RIM Operations Engineering Distributed - A Team, Tier 2

Enterprise Technology Group

Fiserv

don.gu...@fiserv.com

Office: 1-800-523-7282 x 1673

Fax: 610-233-0404

www.fiserv.com <http://www.fiserv.com/> 

 

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 10:54 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff

 

Constructive dismissali.e. he claims he was put in a position where
he had no choice but to resign.

On 8 July 2011 15:41, Guyer, Don  wrote:

How can one "resign" and then turn around and claim "dismissal"?

 

"Yeah, I quitwait I was fired unfairly"...?

 

Maybe I'm missing something here.

 

Don Guyer

Windows Systems Engineer

RIM Operations Engineering Distributed - A Team, Tier 2

Enterprise Technology Group

Fiserv

don.gu...@fiserv.com

Office: 1-800-523-7282 x 1673

Fax: 610-233-0404

www.fiserv.com <http://www.fiserv.com/> 

 

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 7:48 AM


To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff

 

Maybe I should have said the legal systembut clearly whoever sits on
these tribunals must have been taken in by this guy's nonsensical
verbiage. Either that or our solicitors are useless.



Basically this guy was placed under suspension and investigated for
spending all day on his blog instead of working. So he resigned. And
claimed constructive unfair dismissal. And won. I'm waiting to see the
final recommendations of the tribunal and find out whether the technical
issues he put in front of the tribunal had any bearing on the verdict.
I'm hoping they didn't.

On 8 July 2011 12:42, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:

Which part of the justice system failed here?



 

ASB

http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker

Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market...

 

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:02 AM, James Rankin 
wrote:

Well I have lost all faith in the justice system. This guy won his case
for unfair dismissal. He is now awaiting compensation.

 

On 1 July 2011 14:58, James Rankin  wrote:

We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen
truly make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous
thing"...

He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in
his words, "optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix", that
the records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using
Internet Explorer.

He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a
"dual-processor Mac", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage
are inaccurate, as the Mac "works faster and more efficiently than
Windows machines, and henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be
accurately recorded by Windows or Microsoft software"

Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
contributory factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "The
processing time used by the technologies deployed at work, such as Group
Policy, AppSense, and ISA Server, create an inaccurate representation of
my browsing time, as the pages load and unload slower than they would
on, for instance, my dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence
exhibited is inaccurate and inadmissible"

I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that
he actually knows what he is talking about.


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin




-- 
"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."

* IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *

RE: OT: Amusing legal stuff

[Guyer, Don]

I'm sorry; I have a big problem with that. It's Friday, I'm gonna
refrain from ranting over that, so I don't ruin my weekend.

 

J

 

I'll just say I have no tolerance for people that "misbehave" and then
pull a redirect, blaming it on someone/something else.

 

Don Guyer

Windows Systems Engineer

RIM Operations Engineering Distributed - A Team, Tier 2

Enterprise Technology Group

Fiserv

don.gu...@fiserv.com

Office: 1-800-523-7282 x 1673

Fax: 610-233-0404

www.fiserv.com <http://www.fiserv.com/> 

 

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 10:54 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff

 

Constructive dismissali.e. he claims he was put in a position where
he had no choice but to resign.

On 8 July 2011 15:41, Guyer, Don  wrote:

How can one "resign" and then turn around and claim "dismissal"?

 

"Yeah, I quitwait I was fired unfairly"...?

 

Maybe I'm missing something here.

 

Don Guyer

Windows Systems Engineer

RIM Operations Engineering Distributed - A Team, Tier 2

Enterprise Technology Group

Fiserv

don.gu...@fiserv.com

Office: 1-800-523-7282 x 1673

Fax: 610-233-0404

www.fiserv.com <http://www.fiserv.com/> 

 

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 7:48 AM


To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff

 

Maybe I should have said the legal systembut clearly whoever sits on
these tribunals must have been taken in by this guy's nonsensical
verbiage. Either that or our solicitors are useless.



Basically this guy was placed under suspension and investigated for
spending all day on his blog instead of working. So he resigned. And
claimed constructive unfair dismissal. And won. I'm waiting to see the
final recommendations of the tribunal and find out whether the technical
issues he put in front of the tribunal had any bearing on the verdict.
I'm hoping they didn't.

On 8 July 2011 12:42, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:

Which part of the justice system failed here?



 

ASB

http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker

Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market...

 

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:02 AM, James Rankin 
wrote:

Well I have lost all faith in the justice system. This guy won his case
for unfair dismissal. He is now awaiting compensation.

 

On 1 July 2011 14:58, James Rankin  wrote:

We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen
truly make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous
thing"...

He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in
his words, "optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix", that
the records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using
Internet Explorer.

He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a
"dual-processor Mac", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage
are inaccurate, as the Mac "works faster and more efficiently than
Windows machines, and henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be
accurately recorded by Windows or Microsoft software"

Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
contributory factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "The
processing time used by the technologies deployed at work, such as Group
Policy, AppSense, and ISA Server, create an inaccurate representation of
my browsing time, as the pages load and unload slower than they would
on, for instance, my dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence
exhibited is inaccurate and inadmissible"

I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that
he actually knows what he is talking about.


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin




-- 
"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."

* IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *

This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is
addressed. If you have received this message it was obviously addressed
to you and therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it
to you. However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever
then you probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively,
you are a mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill
yourself and destroy your computer (not

Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff

[James Rankin]

Constructive dismissali.e. he claims he was put in a position where he
had no choice but to resign.

On 8 July 2011 15:41, Guyer, Don  wrote:

> How can one “resign” and then turn around and claim “dismissal”?
>
> ** **
>
> “Yeah, I quit….wait I was fired unfairly”…?
>
> ** **
>
> Maybe I’m missing something here.
>
> ** **
>
> *Don Guyer*
>
> Windows Systems Engineer
>
> RIM Operations Engineering Distributed – A Team, Tier 2
>
> Enterprise Technology Group
>
> *Fiserv*
>
> don.gu...@fiserv.com
>
> Office: 1-800-523-7282 x 1673
>
> Fax: 610-233-0404
>
> www.fiserv.com
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 08, 2011 7:48 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff
>
> ** **
>
> Maybe I should have said the legal systembut clearly whoever sits on
> these tribunals must have been taken in by this guy's nonsensical verbiage.
> Either that or our solicitors are useless.
>
>
> Basically this guy was placed under suspension and investigated for
> spending all day on his blog instead of working. So he resigned. And claimed
> constructive unfair dismissal. And won. I'm waiting to see the final
> recommendations of the tribunal and find out whether the technical issues he
> put in front of the tribunal had any bearing on the verdict. I'm hoping they
> didn't.
>
> On 8 July 2011 12:42, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:
>
> Which part of the justice system failed here?
>
> 
>
> ** **
>
> *ASB*
>
> *http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker*
>
> *Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market…*
>
>
>
> 
>
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:02 AM, James Rankin 
> wrote:
>
> Well I have lost all faith in the justice system. This guy won his case for
> unfair dismissal. He is now awaiting compensation.
>
>
>
> 
>
> On 1 July 2011 14:58, James Rankin  wrote:
>
> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen truly
> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
>
> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in his
> words, "*optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix*", that the
> records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using Internet
> Explorer.
>
> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a "*dual-processor
> Mac*", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate, as
> the Mac "*works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
> henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
> Windows or Microsoft software*"
>
> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
> contributory factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "*The processing
> time used by the technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy,
> AppSense, and ISA Server, create an inaccurate representation of my browsing
> time, as the pages load and unload slower than they would on, for instance,
> my dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and
> inadmissible*"
>
> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that he
> actually knows what he is talking about.
> 
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>
>
>
> --
> "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."
>
> ** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
>
> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed.
> If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
> therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
> However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
> probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
> mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
> destroy your computer (not necessarily in that

RE: OT: Amusing legal stuff

[Guyer, Don]

How can one "resign" and then turn around and claim "dismissal"?

 

"Yeah, I quitwait I was fired unfairly"...?

 

Maybe I'm missing something here.

 

Don Guyer

Windows Systems Engineer

RIM Operations Engineering Distributed - A Team, Tier 2

Enterprise Technology Group

Fiserv

don.gu...@fiserv.com

Office: 1-800-523-7282 x 1673

Fax: 610-233-0404

www.fiserv.com <http://www.fiserv.com/> 

 

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 7:48 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff

 

Maybe I should have said the legal systembut clearly whoever sits on
these tribunals must have been taken in by this guy's nonsensical
verbiage. Either that or our solicitors are useless.

Basically this guy was placed under suspension and investigated for
spending all day on his blog instead of working. So he resigned. And
claimed constructive unfair dismissal. And won. I'm waiting to see the
final recommendations of the tribunal and find out whether the technical
issues he put in front of the tribunal had any bearing on the verdict.
I'm hoping they didn't.

On 8 July 2011 12:42, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:

Which part of the justice system failed here?



 

ASB

http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker

Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market...





On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:02 AM, James Rankin 
wrote:

Well I have lost all faith in the justice system. This guy won his case
for unfair dismissal. He is now awaiting compensation.





On 1 July 2011 14:58, James Rankin  wrote:

We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen
truly make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous
thing"...

He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in
his words, "optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix", that
the records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using
Internet Explorer.

He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a
"dual-processor Mac", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage
are inaccurate, as the Mac "works faster and more efficiently than
Windows machines, and henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be
accurately recorded by Windows or Microsoft software"

Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
contributory factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "The
processing time used by the technologies deployed at work, such as Group
Policy, AppSense, and ISA Server, create an inaccurate representation of
my browsing time, as the pages load and unload slower than they would
on, for instance, my dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence
exhibited is inaccurate and inadmissible"

I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that
he actually knows what he is talking about.


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin




-- 
"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."

* IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *

This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is
addressed. If you have received this message it was obviously addressed
to you and therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it
to you. However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever
then you probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively,
you are a mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill
yourself and destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once
you have taken this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use
your computer, because you just destroyed it, and possibly also
committed suicide afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. 

The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way
it's a pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell
on. But should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to
ruminate on it, and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you
find them. However, if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a
disclaimer regarding liability for transmission.

In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
please return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's

Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff

[Harry Singh]

"At Will" -- apologies.


On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Harry Singh  wrote:

> Really? He won? I sincerely hope it wasn't based on that technical nonsense
> he spewed.
>
> is your employer "At wil" ?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 8:28 AM, James Rankin wrote:
>
>> Not me :-) one of the guys from our networks team, who I haven't
>> bumped into yet
>>
>>
>> On 8 July 2011 13:20, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:
>>
>>> Who was the expert witness?
>>>
>>> * *
>>>
>>> *ASB* *http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
>>> Technology for the SMB market…
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 7:48 AM, James Rankin wrote:
>>>
 Maybe I should have said the legal systembut clearly whoever sits on
 these tribunals must have been taken in by this guy's nonsensical verbiage.
 Either that or our solicitors are useless.

 Basically this guy was placed under suspension and investigated for
 spending all day on his blog instead of working. So he resigned. And 
 claimed
 constructive unfair dismissal. And won. I'm waiting to see the final
 recommendations of the tribunal and find out whether the technical issues 
 he
 put in front of the tribunal had any bearing on the verdict. I'm hoping 
 they
 didn't.


 On 8 July 2011 12:42, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:

> Which part of the justice system failed here?
>
>
> * *
>
> *ASB* *http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
> Technology for the SMB market…
>
> *
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:02 AM, James Rankin wrote:
>
>> Well I have lost all faith in the justice system. This guy won his
>> case for unfair dismissal. He is now awaiting compensation.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1 July 2011 14:58, James Rankin  wrote:
>>
>>> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
>>> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen 
>>> truly
>>> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
>>>
>>> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is,
>>> in his words, "*optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix*",
>>> that the records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not 
>>> using
>>> Internet Explorer.
>>>
>>> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a 
>>> "*dual-processor
>>> Mac*", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are
>>> inaccurate, as the Mac "*works faster and more efficiently than
>>> Windows machines, and henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be
>>> accurately recorded by Windows or Microsoft software*"
>>>
>>> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
>>> contributory factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "*The
>>> processing time used by the technologies deployed at work, such as Group
>>> Policy, AppSense, and ISA Server, create an inaccurate representation 
>>> of my
>>> browsing time, as the pages load and unload slower than they would on, 
>>> for
>>> instance, my dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is
>>> inaccurate and inadmissible*"
>>>
>>> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal
>>> that he actually knows what he is talking about.
>>>
>>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>



 --
 "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."

 ** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *

 This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is
 addressed. If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to
 you and therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to 
 you.
 However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
 probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
 mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
 destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
 this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
 because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
 afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. *

 * The originator of this email is not liable for the transmissi

Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff

[Harry Singh]

Really? He won? I sincerely hope it wasn't based on that technical nonsense
he spewed.

is your employer "At wil" ?



On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 8:28 AM, James Rankin  wrote:

> Not me :-) one of the guys from our networks team, who I haven't bumped
> into yet
>
>
> On 8 July 2011 13:20, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:
>
>> Who was the expert witness?
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *ASB* *http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
>> Technology for the SMB market…
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 7:48 AM, James Rankin wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe I should have said the legal systembut clearly whoever sits on
>>> these tribunals must have been taken in by this guy's nonsensical verbiage.
>>> Either that or our solicitors are useless.
>>>
>>> Basically this guy was placed under suspension and investigated for
>>> spending all day on his blog instead of working. So he resigned. And claimed
>>> constructive unfair dismissal. And won. I'm waiting to see the final
>>> recommendations of the tribunal and find out whether the technical issues he
>>> put in front of the tribunal had any bearing on the verdict. I'm hoping they
>>> didn't.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8 July 2011 12:42, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:
>>>
 Which part of the justice system failed here?


 * *

 *ASB* *http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
 Technology for the SMB market…

 *



 On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:02 AM, James Rankin wrote:

> Well I have lost all faith in the justice system. This guy won his case
> for unfair dismissal. He is now awaiting compensation.
>
>
>
> On 1 July 2011 14:58, James Rankin  wrote:
>
>> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
>> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen 
>> truly
>> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
>>
>> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in
>> his words, "*optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix*",
>> that the records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not 
>> using
>> Internet Explorer.
>>
>> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a 
>> "*dual-processor
>> Mac*", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are
>> inaccurate, as the Mac "*works faster and more efficiently than
>> Windows machines, and henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be
>> accurately recorded by Windows or Microsoft software*"
>>
>> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
>> contributory factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "*The
>> processing time used by the technologies deployed at work, such as Group
>> Policy, AppSense, and ISA Server, create an inaccurate representation of 
>> my
>> browsing time, as the pages load and unload slower than they would on, 
>> for
>> instance, my dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is
>> inaccurate and inadmissible*"
>>
>> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that
>> he actually knows what he is talking about.
>>
>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
 ~   ~

 ---
 To manage subscriptions click here:
 http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
 or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
 with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> "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."
>>>
>>> ** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
>>>
>>> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is
>>> addressed. If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to
>>> you and therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
>>> However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
>>> probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
>>> mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
>>> destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
>>> this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
>>> because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
>>> afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. *
>>>
>>> * The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
>>> information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's a
>>> pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
>>> should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to rumin

Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff

[James Rankin]

Not me :-) one of the guys from our networks team, who I haven't bumped
into yet

On 8 July 2011 13:20, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:

> Who was the expert witness?
>
> * *
>
> *ASB* *http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
> Technology for the SMB market…
>
> *
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 7:48 AM, James Rankin wrote:
>
>> Maybe I should have said the legal systembut clearly whoever sits on
>> these tribunals must have been taken in by this guy's nonsensical verbiage.
>> Either that or our solicitors are useless.
>>
>> Basically this guy was placed under suspension and investigated for
>> spending all day on his blog instead of working. So he resigned. And claimed
>> constructive unfair dismissal. And won. I'm waiting to see the final
>> recommendations of the tribunal and find out whether the technical issues he
>> put in front of the tribunal had any bearing on the verdict. I'm hoping they
>> didn't.
>>
>>
>> On 8 July 2011 12:42, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:
>>
>>> Which part of the justice system failed here?
>>>
>>>
>>> * *
>>>
>>> *ASB* *http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
>>> Technology for the SMB market…
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:02 AM, James Rankin wrote:
>>>
 Well I have lost all faith in the justice system. This guy won his case
 for unfair dismissal. He is now awaiting compensation.



 On 1 July 2011 14:58, James Rankin  wrote:

> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen 
> truly
> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
>
> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in
> his words, "*optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix*",
> that the records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not 
> using
> Internet Explorer.
>
> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a 
> "*dual-processor
> Mac*", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are
> inaccurate, as the Mac "*works faster and more efficiently than
> Windows machines, and henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be
> accurately recorded by Windows or Microsoft software*"
>
> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
> contributory factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "*The
> processing time used by the technologies deployed at work, such as Group
> Policy, AppSense, and ISA Server, create an inaccurate representation of 
> my
> browsing time, as the pages load and unload slower than they would on, for
> instance, my dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is
> inaccurate and inadmissible*"
>
> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that
> he actually knows what he is talking about.
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
>>> ~   ~
>>>
>>> ---
>>> To manage subscriptions click here:
>>> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
>>> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
>>> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "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."
>>
>> ** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
>>
>> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is
>> addressed. If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to
>> you and therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
>> However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
>> probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
>> mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
>> destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
>> this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
>> because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
>> afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. *
>>
>> * The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
>> information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's a
>> pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
>> should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
>> and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
>> if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
>> liability for transmission.
>> *
>>
>> * In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
>> please return it to us

Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff

[Andrew S. Baker]

Who was the expert witness?

* *

*ASB* *http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
Technology for the SMB market…

*



On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 7:48 AM, James Rankin  wrote:

> Maybe I should have said the legal systembut clearly whoever sits on
> these tribunals must have been taken in by this guy's nonsensical verbiage.
> Either that or our solicitors are useless.
>
> Basically this guy was placed under suspension and investigated for
> spending all day on his blog instead of working. So he resigned. And claimed
> constructive unfair dismissal. And won. I'm waiting to see the final
> recommendations of the tribunal and find out whether the technical issues he
> put in front of the tribunal had any bearing on the verdict. I'm hoping they
> didn't.
>
>
> On 8 July 2011 12:42, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:
>
>> Which part of the justice system failed here?
>>
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *ASB* *http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
>> Technology for the SMB market…
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:02 AM, James Rankin wrote:
>>
>>> Well I have lost all faith in the justice system. This guy won his case
>>> for unfair dismissal. He is now awaiting compensation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1 July 2011 14:58, James Rankin  wrote:
>>>
 We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
 Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen 
 truly
 make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...

 He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in
 his words, "*optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix*",
 that the records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not 
 using
 Internet Explorer.

 He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a 
 "*dual-processor
 Mac*", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate,
 as the Mac "*works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines,
 and henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
 Windows or Microsoft software*"

 Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
 contributory factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "*The
 processing time used by the technologies deployed at work, such as Group
 Policy, AppSense, and ISA Server, create an inaccurate representation of my
 browsing time, as the pages load and unload slower than they would on, for
 instance, my dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is
 inaccurate and inadmissible*"

 I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that
 he actually knows what he is talking about.

 ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
>> ~   ~
>>
>> ---
>> To manage subscriptions click here:
>> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
>> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
>> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "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."
>
> ** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
>
> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed.
> If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
> therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
> However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
> probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
> mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
> destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
> this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
> because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
> afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. *
>
> * The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
> information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's a
> pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
> should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
> and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
> if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
> liability for transmission.
> *
>
> * In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
> please return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's
> brother's wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately
> refund you exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought
> when you went to Pets** ** At Home yesterday. *
>
> * We 

Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff

[James Rankin]

Maybe I should have said the legal systembut clearly whoever sits on
these tribunals must have been taken in by this guy's nonsensical verbiage.
Either that or our solicitors are useless.

Basically this guy was placed under suspension and investigated for spending
all day on his blog instead of working. So he resigned. And claimed
constructive unfair dismissal. And won. I'm waiting to see the final
recommendations of the tribunal and find out whether the technical issues he
put in front of the tribunal had any bearing on the verdict. I'm hoping they
didn't.

On 8 July 2011 12:42, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:

> Which part of the justice system failed here?
>
>
> * *
>
> *ASB* *http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
> Technology for the SMB market…
>
> *
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:02 AM, James Rankin wrote:
>
>> Well I have lost all faith in the justice system. This guy won his case
>> for unfair dismissal. He is now awaiting compensation.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1 July 2011 14:58, James Rankin  wrote:
>>
>>> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
>>> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen truly
>>> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
>>>
>>> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in
>>> his words, "*optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix*", that
>>> the records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using
>>> Internet Explorer.
>>>
>>> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a 
>>> "*dual-processor
>>> Mac*", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate,
>>> as the Mac "*works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines,
>>> and henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
>>> Windows or Microsoft software*"
>>>
>>> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
>>> contributory factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "*The
>>> processing time used by the technologies deployed at work, such as Group
>>> Policy, AppSense, and ISA Server, create an inaccurate representation of my
>>> browsing time, as the pages load and unload slower than they would on, for
>>> instance, my dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is
>>> inaccurate and inadmissible*"
>>>
>>> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that he
>>> actually knows what he is talking about.
>>>
>>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>



-- 
"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."

** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *

This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed.
If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. *

* The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's a
pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
liability for transmission.
*

* In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
please return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's
brother's wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately
refund you exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought
when you went to Pets** ** At Home yesterday. *

* We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or
implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of receivin

Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff

[Andrew S. Baker]

Which part of the justice system failed here?


* *

*ASB* *http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
Technology for the SMB market…

*



On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:02 AM, James Rankin  wrote:

> Well I have lost all faith in the justice system. This guy won his case for
> unfair dismissal. He is now awaiting compensation.
>
>
>
> On 1 July 2011 14:58, James Rankin  wrote:
>
>> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
>> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen truly
>> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
>>
>> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in his
>> words, "*optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix*", that the
>> records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using Internet
>> Explorer.
>>
>> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a "*dual-processor
>> Mac*", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate,
>> as the Mac "*works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
>> henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
>> Windows or Microsoft software*"
>>
>> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
>> contributory factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "*The
>> processing time used by the technologies deployed at work, such as Group
>> Policy, AppSense, and ISA Server, create an inaccurate representation of my
>> browsing time, as the pages load and unload slower than they would on, for
>> instance, my dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is
>> inaccurate and inadmissible*"
>>
>> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that he
>> actually knows what he is talking about.
>>
>>

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff

[James Rankin]

Well I have lost all faith in the justice system. This guy won his case for
unfair dismissal. He is now awaiting compensation.


On 1 July 2011 14:58, James Rankin  wrote:

> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen truly
> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
>
> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in his
> words, "*optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix*", that the
> records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using Internet
> Explorer.
>
> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a "*dual-processor
> Mac*", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate, as
> the Mac "*works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
> henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
> Windows or Microsoft software*"
>
> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
> contributory factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "*The processing
> time used by the technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy,
> AppSense, and ISA Server, create an inaccurate representation of my browsing
> time, as the pages load and unload slower than they would on, for instance,
> my dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and
> inadmissible*"
>
> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that he
> actually knows what he is talking about.
>
> --
> "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."
>
> ** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
>
> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed.
> If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
> therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
> However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
> probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
> mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
> destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
> this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
> because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
> afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. *
>
> * The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
> information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's a
> pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
> should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
> and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
> if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
> liability for transmission.
> *
>
> * In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
> please return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's
> brother's wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately
> refund you exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought
> when you went to Pets** ** At Home yesterday. *
>
> * We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
> running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
> event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
> responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or
> implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of receiving,
> or not, as the case may be, from time to time, notwithstanding all
> liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, hell, where was I...umm, no matter
> what happens, it is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR FAULT! *
>
> * The comments and opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of
> my employer, who, if he knew I was sending emails and surfing the seamier
> side of the Internet, would cut off my manhood and feed it to me for
> afternoon tea. *
>
>
>


-- 
"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."

** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *

This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed.
If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
destroy your 

Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff

[Micheal Espinola Jr]

I'm looking for extra work these days.  Send them over to me for a
highly-precise discrepancy review.

--
Espi





On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Jacob  wrote:

> We used to have someone watch videos all day. When we get a defective one
> back from a customer, an employee would have to determine what the defect
> was (if not noted by the customer), note it and send it back to the vendor.
> He would let the pile up (like 15 or 20 DVDs) before he would view them…**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* kz2...@googlemail.com [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 01, 2011 1:03 PM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff
>
> ** **
>
> Amen. You need someone to browse pr0n all day, its a tough job, but I am up
> to the challenge.
>
> Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at any
> moment
> --
>
> *From: *Rene de Haas  
>
> *Date: *Fri, 1 Jul 2011 21:54:33 +0200
>
> *To: *NT System Admin Issues
>
> *ReplyTo: *"NT System Admin Issues"  >
>
> *Subject: *Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff
>
> ** **
>
> Are you hiring? :)
>
> Op 1 jul. 2011 17:26 schreef "Jacob"  het
> volgende:
> > We had to discipline someone because they surfed a "non-adult related"
> site.
> > Not kidding.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 6:59 AM
> > To: NT System Admin Issues
> > Subject: OT: Amusing legal stuff
> >
> >
> >
> > We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
> > Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen
> truly
> > make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
> >
> > He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in
> his
> > words, "optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix", that the
> > records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using
> Internet
> > Explorer.
> >
> > He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a
> "dual-processor
> > Mac", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate, as
> > the Mac "works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
> > henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
> > Windows or Microsoft software"
> >
> > Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
> contributory
> > factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "The processing time used by
> > the technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy, AppSense, and
> ISA
> > Server, create an inaccurate representation of my browsing time, as the
> > pages load and unload slower than they would on, for instance, my
> > dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and
> > inadmissible"
> >
> > I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that he
> > actually knows what he is talking about.
> >
> > --
> > "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."
> >
> > * IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
> >
> > This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is
> addressed.
> > If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
> > therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
> > However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
> > probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
> > mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
> > destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have
> taken
> > this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
> > because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
> > afterwards, but I am starting to digress..
> >
> > The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
> > information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's
> a
> > pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
> > should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
> > and please pa

RE: RE: Amusing legal stuff

[Rod Trent]

Gives new meaning to employee training.

 

From: Jacob [mailto:ja...@excaliburfilms.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 5:37 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: RE: Amusing legal stuff

 

Depends on your talents.

 

From: Rene de Haas [mailto:rene.deh...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 12:55 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff

 

Are you hiring? :)

Op 1 jul. 2011 17:26 schreef "Jacob"  het
volgende:
> We had to discipline someone because they surfed a "non-adult related"
site.
> Not kidding.
> 
> 
> 
> From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 6:59 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: OT: Amusing legal stuff
> 
> 
> 
> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen
truly
> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
> 
> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in his
> words, "optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix", that the
> records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using
Internet
> Explorer.
> 
> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a
"dual-processor
> Mac", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate, as
> the Mac "works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
> henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
> Windows or Microsoft software"
> 
> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
contributory
> factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "The processing time used by
> the technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy, AppSense, and ISA
> Server, create an inaccurate representation of my browsing time, as the
> pages load and unload slower than they would on, for instance, my
> dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and
> inadmissible"
> 
> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that he
> actually knows what he is talking about.
> 
> -- 
> "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."
> 
> * IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
> 
> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is
addressed.
> If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
> therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
> However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
> probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
> mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
> destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
> this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
> because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
> afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. 
> 
> The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
> information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's
a
> pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
> should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
> and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
> if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
> liability for transmission.
> 
> In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
please
> return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's brother's
> wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately refund
you
> exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought when you
> went to Pets At Home yesterday. 
> 
> We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
> running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
> event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
> responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or
> implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of receiving,
> or not, as the case may be, from time to time, notwithstanding all
> liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, hell, where was I...umm, no matter
> what happens, it is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR FAULT! 
> 
> The comments and opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of my
> employe

RE: RE: Amusing legal stuff

[Jacob]

We used to have someone watch videos all day. When we get a defective one
back from a customer, an employee would have to determine what the defect
was (if not noted by the customer), note it and send it back to the vendor.
He would let the pile up (like 15 or 20 DVDs) before he would view them.

 

From: kz2...@googlemail.com [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 1:03 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff

 

Amen. You need someone to browse pr0n all day, its a tough job, but I am up
to the challenge.

Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at any
moment

  _  

From: Rene de Haas  

Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 21:54:33 +0200

To: NT System Admin Issues

ReplyTo: "NT System Admin Issues" 

Subject: Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff

 

Are you hiring? :)

Op 1 jul. 2011 17:26 schreef "Jacob"  het
volgende:
> We had to discipline someone because they surfed a "non-adult related"
site.
> Not kidding.
> 
> 
> 
> From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 6:59 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: OT: Amusing legal stuff
> 
> 
> 
> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen
truly
> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
> 
> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in his
> words, "optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix", that the
> records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using
Internet
> Explorer.
> 
> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a
"dual-processor
> Mac", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate, as
> the Mac "works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
> henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
> Windows or Microsoft software"
> 
> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
contributory
> factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "The processing time used by
> the technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy, AppSense, and ISA
> Server, create an inaccurate representation of my browsing time, as the
> pages load and unload slower than they would on, for instance, my
> dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and
> inadmissible"
> 
> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that he
> actually knows what he is talking about.
> 
> -- 
> "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."
> 
> * IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
> 
> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is
addressed.
> If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
> therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
> However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
> probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
> mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
> destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
> this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
> because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
> afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. 
> 
> The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
> information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's
a
> pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
> should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
> and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
> if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
> liability for transmission.
> 
> In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
please
> return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's brother's
> wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately refund
you
> exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought when you
> went to Pets At Home yesterday. 
> 
> We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
> running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
> event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
> responsib

RE: RE: Amusing legal stuff

[Jacob]

Depends on your talents.

 

From: Rene de Haas [mailto:rene.deh...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 12:55 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff

 

Are you hiring? :)

Op 1 jul. 2011 17:26 schreef "Jacob"  het
volgende:
> We had to discipline someone because they surfed a "non-adult related"
site.
> Not kidding.
> 
> 
> 
> From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 6:59 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: OT: Amusing legal stuff
> 
> 
> 
> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen
truly
> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
> 
> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in his
> words, "optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix", that the
> records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using
Internet
> Explorer.
> 
> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a
"dual-processor
> Mac", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate, as
> the Mac "works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
> henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
> Windows or Microsoft software"
> 
> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
contributory
> factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "The processing time used by
> the technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy, AppSense, and ISA
> Server, create an inaccurate representation of my browsing time, as the
> pages load and unload slower than they would on, for instance, my
> dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and
> inadmissible"
> 
> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that he
> actually knows what he is talking about.
> 
> -- 
> "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."
> 
> * IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
> 
> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is
addressed.
> If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
> therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
> However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
> probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
> mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
> destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
> this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
> because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
> afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. 
> 
> The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
> information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's
a
> pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
> should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
> and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
> if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
> liability for transmission.
> 
> In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
please
> return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's brother's
> wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately refund
you
> exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought when you
> went to Pets At Home yesterday. 
> 
> We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
> running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
> event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
> responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or
> implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of receiving,
> or not, as the case may be, from time to time, notwithstanding all
> liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, hell, where was I...umm, no matter
> what happens, it is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR FAULT! 
> 
> The comments and opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of my
> employer, who, if he knew I was sending emails and surfing the seamier
side
> of the Internet, would cut off my manhood and feed it to me for afternoon
> tea. 
> 
> 
> 
> ~ Fina

Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff

[Daniel Rodriguez]

up to the challenge?

*groan-whince*
On Jul 1, 2011 4:03 PM,  wrote:
> Amen. You need someone to browse pr0n all day, its a tough job, but I am
up to the challenge.
>
> Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at any
moment
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rene de Haas 
> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 21:54:33
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Reply-To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
> Subject:
Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff
>
> Are you hiring? :)
> Op 1 jul. 2011 17:26 schreef "Jacob"  het
> volgende:
>> We had to discipline someone because they surfed a "non-adult related"
> site.
>> Not kidding.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 6:59 AM
>> To: NT System Admin Issues
>> Subject: OT: Amusing legal stuff
>>
>>
>>
>> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
>> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen
> truly
>> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
>>
>> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in
his
>> words, "optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix", that the
>> records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using
> Internet
>> Explorer.
>>
>> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a
> "dual-processor
>> Mac", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate, as
>> the Mac "works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
>> henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
>> Windows or Microsoft software"
>>
>> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
> contributory
>> factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "The processing time used by
>> the technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy, AppSense, and
ISA
>> Server, create an inaccurate representation of my browsing time, as the
>> pages load and unload slower than they would on, for instance, my
>> dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and
>> inadmissible"
>>
>> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that he
>> actually knows what he is talking about.
>>
>> --
>> "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."
>>
>> * IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
>>
>> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is
> addressed.
>> If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
>> therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
>> However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
>> probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
>> mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
>> destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have
taken
>> this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
>> because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
>> afterwards, but I am starting to digress..
>>
>> The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
>> information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's
> a
>> pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
>> should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
>> and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them.
However,
>> if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
>> liability for transmission.
>>
>> In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
> please
>> return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's
brother's
>> wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately refund
> you
>> exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought when you
>> went to Pets At Home yesterday.
>>
>> We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
>> running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
>> event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
>> responsibilit

Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff

[kz20fl]

No, but I will claim it :-)

Sent from my POS BlackBerry  wireless device, which may wipe itself at any 
moment

-Original Message-
From: "David Mazzaccaro" 
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 16:19:39 
To: NT System Admin Issues
Reply-To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Subject: RE: RE: Amusing legal stuff

pun intended?

 

From: kz2...@googlemail.com [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 4:03 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff

 

Amen. You need someone to browse pr0n all day, its a tough job, but I am
up to the challenge.

Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at
any moment



From: Rene de Haas  

Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 21:54:33 +0200

To: NT System Admin Issues

ReplyTo: "NT System Admin Issues"


Subject: Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff

 

Are you hiring? :)

Op 1 jul. 2011 17:26 schreef "Jacob"  het
volgende:
> We had to discipline someone because they surfed a "non-adult related"
site.
> Not kidding.
> 
> 
> 
> From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 6:59 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: OT: Amusing legal stuff
> 
> 
> 
> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen
truly
> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
> 
> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in
his
> words, "optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix", that the
> records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using
Internet
> Explorer.
> 
> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a
"dual-processor
> Mac", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate,
as
> the Mac "works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
> henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded
by
> Windows or Microsoft software"
> 
> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
contributory
> factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "The processing time used
by
> the technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy, AppSense, and
ISA
> Server, create an inaccurate representation of my browsing time, as
the
> pages load and unload slower than they would on, for instance, my
> dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and
> inadmissible"
> 
> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that
he
> actually knows what he is talking about.
> 
> -- 
> "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."
> 
> * IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
> 
> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is
addressed.
> If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you
and
> therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
> However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then
you
> probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
> mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
> destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have
taken
> this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your
computer,
> because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
> afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. 
> 
> The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
> information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way
it's a
> pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
> should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on
it,
> and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them.
However,
> if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer
regarding
> liability for transmission.
> 
> In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
please
> return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's
brother's
> wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately
refund you
> exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought when
you
> went to Pets At Home yesterday. 
> 
> We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
> running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In
the
> event that you do get this

RE: RE: Amusing legal stuff

[David Mazzaccaro]

pun intended?

 

From: kz2...@googlemail.com [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 4:03 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff

 

Amen. You need someone to browse pr0n all day, its a tough job, but I am
up to the challenge.

Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at
any moment



From: Rene de Haas  

Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 21:54:33 +0200

To: NT System Admin Issues

ReplyTo: "NT System Admin Issues"


Subject: Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff

 

Are you hiring? :)

Op 1 jul. 2011 17:26 schreef "Jacob"  het
volgende:
> We had to discipline someone because they surfed a "non-adult related"
site.
> Not kidding.
> 
> 
> 
> From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 6:59 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: OT: Amusing legal stuff
> 
> 
> 
> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen
truly
> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
> 
> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in
his
> words, "optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix", that the
> records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using
Internet
> Explorer.
> 
> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a
"dual-processor
> Mac", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate,
as
> the Mac "works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
> henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded
by
> Windows or Microsoft software"
> 
> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
contributory
> factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "The processing time used
by
> the technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy, AppSense, and
ISA
> Server, create an inaccurate representation of my browsing time, as
the
> pages load and unload slower than they would on, for instance, my
> dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and
> inadmissible"
> 
> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that
he
> actually knows what he is talking about.
> 
> -- 
> "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."
> 
> * IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
> 
> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is
addressed.
> If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you
and
> therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
> However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then
you
> probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
> mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
> destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have
taken
> this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your
computer,
> because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
> afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. 
> 
> The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
> information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way
it's a
> pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
> should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on
it,
> and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them.
However,
> if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer
regarding
> liability for transmission.
> 
> In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
please
> return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's
brother's
> wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately
refund you
> exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought when
you
> went to Pets At Home yesterday. 
> 
> We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
> running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In
the
> event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
> responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability,
tacit or
> implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of
receiving,
> or not, as the case may be, from time to time, notwithstanding all
> liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, 

Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff

[kz20fl]

Amen. You need someone to browse pr0n all day, its a tough job, but I am up to 
the challenge.

Sent from my POS BlackBerry  wireless device, which may wipe itself at any 
moment

-Original Message-
From: Rene de Haas 
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 21:54:33 
To: NT System Admin Issues
Reply-To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Subject: Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff

Are you hiring? :)
 Op 1 jul. 2011 17:26 schreef "Jacob"  het
volgende:
> We had to discipline someone because they surfed a "non-adult related"
site.
> Not kidding.
>
>
>
> From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 6:59 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: OT: Amusing legal stuff
>
>
>
> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen
truly
> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
>
> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in his
> words, "optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix", that the
> records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using
Internet
> Explorer.
>
> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a
"dual-processor
> Mac", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate, as
> the Mac "works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
> henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
> Windows or Microsoft software"
>
> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
contributory
> factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "The processing time used by
> the technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy, AppSense, and ISA
> Server, create an inaccurate representation of my browsing time, as the
> pages load and unload slower than they would on, for instance, my
> dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and
> inadmissible"
>
> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that he
> actually knows what he is talking about.
>
> --
> "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."
>
> * IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
>
> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is
addressed.
> If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
> therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
> However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
> probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
> mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
> destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
> this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
> because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
> afterwards, but I am starting to digress..
>
> The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
> information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's
a
> pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
> should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
> and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
> if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
> liability for transmission.
>
> In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
please
> return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's brother's
> wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately refund
you
> exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought when you
> went to Pets At Home yesterday.
>
> We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
> running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
> event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
> responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or
> implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of receiving,
> or not, as the case may be, from time to time, notwithstanding all
> liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, hell, where was I...umm, no matter
> what happens, it is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR FAULT!
>
> The comments and opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of my
> employer, who, if he knew I was se

Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff

[Rene de Haas]

Are you hiring? :)
 Op 1 jul. 2011 17:26 schreef "Jacob"  het
volgende:
> We had to discipline someone because they surfed a "non-adult related"
site.
> Not kidding.
>
>
>
> From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 6:59 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: OT: Amusing legal stuff
>
>
>
> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen
truly
> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
>
> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in his
> words, "optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix", that the
> records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using
Internet
> Explorer.
>
> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a
"dual-processor
> Mac", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate, as
> the Mac "works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
> henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
> Windows or Microsoft software"
>
> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
contributory
> factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "The processing time used by
> the technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy, AppSense, and ISA
> Server, create an inaccurate representation of my browsing time, as the
> pages load and unload slower than they would on, for instance, my
> dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and
> inadmissible"
>
> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that he
> actually knows what he is talking about.
>
> --
> "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."
>
> * IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
>
> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is
addressed.
> If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
> therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
> However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
> probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
> mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
> destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
> this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
> because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
> afterwards, but I am starting to digress..
>
> The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
> information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's
a
> pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
> should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
> and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
> if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
> liability for transmission.
>
> In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
please
> return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's brother's
> wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately refund
you
> exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought when you
> went to Pets At Home yesterday.
>
> We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
> running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
> event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
> responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or
> implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of receiving,
> or not, as the case may be, from time to time, notwithstanding all
> liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, hell, where was I...umm, no matter
> what happens, it is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR FAULT!
>
> The comments and opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of my
> employer, who, if he knew I was sending emails and surfing the seamier
side
> of the Internet, would cut off my manhood and feed it to me for afternoon
> tea.
>
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http:

Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff

[Erik Goldoff]

a clear case of cranial-rectal inversion !



On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Free, Bob  wrote:

>  Sounds to me like he drank so much of the Apple juice it has given him
> cranial and oral diarrhea.
>
> ** **
>
> “I can’t possibly be guilty of malfeasance, I use a Mac, it’s all that
> Microsoft stuff causing me to appear to be a slacker!”
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Erik Goldoff [mailto:egold...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 01, 2011 7:19 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff
>
> ** **
>
> depends on what the definition of 'is' is  
>
>  
>
> what a TOOL !
>
>  
>
> I say if he can provide empirical evidence or even officially recorded
> precedence he should be set free, otherwise DOUBLE his punishment as a
> bullsh*t penalty !!!
>
>
>
>  
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:58 AM, James Rankin 
> wrote:
>
> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen truly
> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
>
> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in his
> words, "*optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix*", that the
> records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using Internet
> Explorer.
>
> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a "*dual-processor
> Mac*", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate, as
> the Mac "*works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
> henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
> Windows or Microsoft software*"
>
> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
> contributory factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "*The processing
> time used by the technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy,
> AppSense, and ISA Server, create an inaccurate representation of my browsing
> time, as the pages load and unload slower than they would on, for instance,
> my dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and
> inadmissible*"
>
> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that he
> actually knows what he is talking about.
>
> --
> "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."
>
> ** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
>
> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed.
> If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
> therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
> However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
> probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
> mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
> destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
> this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
> because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
> afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. *
>
> *The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
> information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's a
> pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
> should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
> and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
> if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
> liability for transmission.*
>
> *In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
> please return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's
> brother's wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately
> refund you exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought
> when you went to Pets At Home yesterday. *
>
> *We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
> running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
> event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
> responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or
> implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of receiving,
> or not, as the case 

Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff

[Andrew S. Baker]

LOL

* *

*ASB* *http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
Technology for the SMB market…

*



On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Free, Bob  wrote:

>  Sounds to me like he drank so much of the Apple juice it has given him
> cranial and oral diarrhea.
>
> ** **
>
> “I can’t possibly be guilty of malfeasance, I use a Mac, it’s all that
> Microsoft stuff causing me to appear to be a slacker!”
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Erik Goldoff [mailto:egold...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 01, 2011 7:19 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff
>
> ** **
>
> depends on what the definition of 'is' is  
>
>  
>
> what a TOOL !
>
>  
>
> I say if he can provide empirical evidence or even officially recorded
> precedence he should be set free, otherwise DOUBLE his punishment as a
> bullsh*t penalty !!!
>
>
>
>  
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:58 AM, James Rankin 
> wrote:
>
> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen truly
> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
>
> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in his
> words, "*optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix*", that the
> records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using Internet
> Explorer.
>
> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a "*dual-processor
> Mac*", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate, as
> the Mac "*works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
> henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
> Windows or Microsoft software*"
>
> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
> contributory factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "*The processing
> time used by the technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy,
> AppSense, and ISA Server, create an inaccurate representation of my browsing
> time, as the pages load and unload slower than they would on, for instance,
> my dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and
> inadmissible*"
>
> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that he
> actually knows what he is talking about.
>
> --
> "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."
>
> ** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
>
> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed.
> If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
> therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
> However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
> probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
> mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
> destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
> this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
> because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
> afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. *
>
> *The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
> information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's a
> pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
> should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
> and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
> if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
> liability for transmission.*
>
> *In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
> please return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's
> brother's wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately
> refund you exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought
> when you went to Pets At Home yesterday. *
>
> *We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
> running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
> event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
> responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or
> implied, for any damage you

Re: Amusing legal stuff

[Steven Peck]

Don't do IT.  Don't check out his email address from work.  You may have to
go to the same follow up meeting.

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:45 AM, David Mazzaccaro <
david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com> wrote:

> Check his email address, it will all make perfect sense.
> LOL
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph Heaton [mailto:jhea...@dfg.ca.gov]
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 12:17 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Amusing legal stuff
>
> Disciplined for NOT surfing pr0n?
>
> Wow, that's harsh :P
>
> >>> Jacob  7/1/2011 8:23 AM >>>
> We had to discipline someone because they surfed a "non-adult related"
> site.
> Not kidding.
>
>
>
> From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 6:59 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: OT: Amusing legal stuff
>
>
>
> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen
> truly
> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
>
> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in
> his
> words, "optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix", that the
> records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using
> Internet
> Explorer.
>
> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a
> "dual-processor
> Mac", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate,
> as
> the Mac "works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
> henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
> Windows or Microsoft software"
>
> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
> contributory
> factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "The processing time used
> by
> the technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy, AppSense, and
> ISA
> Server, create an inaccurate representation of my browsing time, as the
> pages load and unload slower than they would on, for instance, my
> dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and
> inadmissible"
>
> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that
> he
> actually knows what he is talking about.
>
> --
> "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."
>
> * IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
>
> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is
> addressed.
> If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
> therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
> However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
> probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
> mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
> destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have
> taken
> this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
> because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
> afterwards, but I am starting to digress..
>
> The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
> information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way
> it's a
> pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
> should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on
> it,
> and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them.
> However,
> if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
> liability for transmission.
>
> In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
> please
> return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's
> brother's
> wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately refund
> you
> exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought when you
> went to Pets At Home yesterday.
>
> We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
> running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
> event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
> responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit
> or
> implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of
> receiving,
> or not, as the case may b

RE: OT: Amusing legal stuff

[Free, Bob]

Sounds to me like he drank so much of the Apple juice it has given him cranial 
and oral diarrhea.

"I can't possibly be guilty of malfeasance, I use a Mac, it's all that 
Microsoft stuff causing me to appear to be a slacker!"



From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:egold...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 7:19 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff

depends on what the definition of 'is' is 

what a TOOL !

I say if he can provide empirical evidence or even officially recorded 
precedence he should be set free, otherwise DOUBLE his punishment as a bullsh*t 
penalty !!!



On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:58 AM, James Rankin 
mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com>> wrote:
We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the Internet. 
He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen truly make me 
aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...

He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in his 
words, "optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix", that the records 
of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using Internet Explorer.

He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a "dual-processor 
Mac", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate, as the 
Mac "works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and henceforth 
creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by Windows or 
Microsoft software"

Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a contributory 
factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "The processing time used by the 
technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy, AppSense, and ISA Server, 
create an inaccurate representation of my browsing time, as the pages load and 
unload slower than they would on, for instance, my dual-processor Mac, 
therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and inadmissible"

I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that he 
actually knows what he is talking about.

--
"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."

* IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *

This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed. If 
you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and therefore 
you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you. However, if the 
contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you probably were not the 
intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a mindless cretin; either way, 
you should immediately kill yourself and destroy your computer (not necessarily 
in that order). Once you have taken this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, 
you can't use your computer, because you just destroyed it, and possibly also 
committed suicide afterwards, but I am starting to digress..

The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the 
information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's a 
pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But should 
you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it, and please 
pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However, if you pass 
them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding liability for 
transmission.

In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then please 
return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's brother's wife 
wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately refund you exactly 
half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought when you went to Pets 
At Home yesterday.

We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are running 
Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the event that you 
do get this message then please note that we take no responsibility for that 
either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or implied, for any damage you 
may or may not incur as a result of receiving, or not, as the case may be, from 
time to time, notwithstanding all liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, hell, 
where was I...umm, no matter what happens, it is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR 
FAULT!

The comments and opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of my 
employer, who, if he knew I was sending emails and surfing the seamier side of 
the Internet, would cut off my manhood and feed it to me for afternoon tea.


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-

Re: Amusing legal stuff

[G.Waleed Kavalec]

Hey, if you are a designated pr0n rater then DO YOUR JOB !


On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Joseph Heaton  wrote:

> Disciplined for NOT surfing pr0n?
>
> Wow, that's harsh :P
>
> >>> Jacob  7/1/2011 8:23 AM >>>
> We had to discipline someone because they surfed a "non-adult related"
> site.
> Not kidding.
>
>
>
> From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 6:59 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: OT: Amusing legal stuff
>
>
>
> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen
> truly
> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
>
> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in his
> words, "optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix", that the
> records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using
> Internet
> Explorer.
>
> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a
> "dual-processor
> Mac", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate, as
> the Mac "works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
> henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
> Windows or Microsoft software"
>
> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
> contributory
> factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "The processing time used by
> the technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy, AppSense, and ISA
> Server, create an inaccurate representation of my browsing time, as the
> pages load and unload slower than they would on, for instance, my
> dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and
> inadmissible"
>
> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that he
> actually knows what he is talking about.
>
> --
> "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."
>
> * IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
>
> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed.
> If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
> therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
> However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
> probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
> mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
> destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
> this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
> because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
> afterwards, but I am starting to digress..
>
> The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
> information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's a
> pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
> should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
> and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
> if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
> liability for transmission.
>
> In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
> please
> return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's brother's
> wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately refund
> you
> exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought when you
> went to Pets At Home yesterday.
>
> We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
> running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
> event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
> responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or
> implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of receiving,
> or not, as the case may be, from time to time, notwithstanding all
> liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, hell, where was I...umm, no matter
> what happens, it is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR FAULT!
>
> The comments and opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of my
> employer, who, if he knew I was sending emails and surfing the seamier side
> of the Internet, would cut off my manhood and feed it to me for afternoon
> tea.
>
>
>
> ~ Finally, power

RE: Amusing legal stuff

[David Mazzaccaro]

Check his email address, it will all make perfect sense.
LOL


-Original Message-
From: Joseph Heaton [mailto:jhea...@dfg.ca.gov] 
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 12:17 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing legal stuff

Disciplined for NOT surfing pr0n?

Wow, that's harsh :P

>>> Jacob  7/1/2011 8:23 AM >>>
We had to discipline someone because they surfed a "non-adult related"
site.
Not kidding.

 

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 6:59 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: OT: Amusing legal stuff

 

We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen
truly
make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...

He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in
his
words, "optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix", that the
records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using
Internet
Explorer.

He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a
"dual-processor
Mac", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate,
as
the Mac "works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
Windows or Microsoft software"

Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
contributory
factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "The processing time used
by
the technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy, AppSense, and
ISA
Server, create an inaccurate representation of my browsing time, as the
pages load and unload slower than they would on, for instance, my
dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and
inadmissible"

I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that
he
actually knows what he is talking about.

-- 
"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."

* IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *

This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is
addressed.
If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have
taken
this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. 

The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way
it's a
pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on
it,
and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them.
However,
if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
liability for transmission.

In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
please
return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's
brother's
wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately refund
you
exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought when you
went to Pets At Home yesterday. 

We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit
or
implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of
receiving,
or not, as the case may be, from time to time, notwithstanding all
liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, hell, where was I...umm, no
matter
what happens, it is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR FAULT! 

The comments and opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of
my
employer, who, if he knew I was sending emails and surfing the seamier
side
of the Internet, would cut off my manhood and feed it to me for
afternoon
tea. 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ 
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com 
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


~ Finally, powerful endpoint secu

RE: Amusing legal stuff

[Joseph Heaton]

Disciplined for NOT surfing pr0n?

Wow, that's harsh :P

>>> Jacob  7/1/2011 8:23 AM >>>
We had to discipline someone because they surfed a "non-adult related" site.
Not kidding.

 

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 6:59 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: OT: Amusing legal stuff

 

We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen truly
make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...

He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in his
words, "optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix", that the
records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using Internet
Explorer.

He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a "dual-processor
Mac", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate, as
the Mac "works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
Windows or Microsoft software"

Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a contributory
factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "The processing time used by
the technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy, AppSense, and ISA
Server, create an inaccurate representation of my browsing time, as the
pages load and unload slower than they would on, for instance, my
dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and
inadmissible"

I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that he
actually knows what he is talking about.

-- 
"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."

* IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *

This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed.
If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. 

The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's a
pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
liability for transmission.

In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then please
return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's brother's
wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately refund you
exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought when you
went to Pets At Home yesterday. 

We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or
implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of receiving,
or not, as the case may be, from time to time, notwithstanding all
liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, hell, where was I...umm, no matter
what happens, it is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR FAULT! 

The comments and opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of my
employer, who, if he knew I was sending emails and surfing the seamier side
of the Internet, would cut off my manhood and feed it to me for afternoon
tea. 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ 
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com 
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ 
or send an email t

RE: Amusing legal stuff

[Jacob]

We had to discipline someone because they surfed a "non-adult related" site.
Not kidding.

 

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 6:59 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: OT: Amusing legal stuff

 

We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen truly
make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...

He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in his
words, "optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix", that the
records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using Internet
Explorer.

He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a "dual-processor
Mac", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate, as
the Mac "works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
Windows or Microsoft software"

Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a contributory
factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "The processing time used by
the technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy, AppSense, and ISA
Server, create an inaccurate representation of my browsing time, as the
pages load and unload slower than they would on, for instance, my
dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and
inadmissible"

I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that he
actually knows what he is talking about.

-- 
"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."

* IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *

This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed.
If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. 

The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's a
pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
liability for transmission.

In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then please
return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's brother's
wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately refund you
exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought when you
went to Pets At Home yesterday. 

We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or
implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of receiving,
or not, as the case may be, from time to time, notwithstanding all
liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, hell, where was I...umm, no matter
what happens, it is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR FAULT! 

The comments and opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of my
employer, who, if he knew I was sending emails and surfing the seamier side
of the Internet, would cut off my manhood and feed it to me for afternoon
tea. 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff

[Andrew S. Baker]

It should be easy enough to dispute all his lovely findings, observations
and assertions by (a) asking him to substantiate any of his statements using
third party data, and (b) pointing out that all of these timings are based
on "network" activity - at the network device itself - and thus not at all
related to any performance deviations, real or imagined, at the OS level.
This is especially true of the VPN connectivity.

-ASB: http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker

Sent from my Motorola Droid
 On Jul 1, 2011 9:59 AM, "James Rankin"  wrote:
> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen
truly
> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
>
> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in his
> words, "*optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix*", that the
> records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using
Internet
> Explorer.
>
> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a
"*dual-processor
> Mac*", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate, as
> the Mac "*works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
> henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
> Windows or Microsoft software*"
>
> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
contributory
> factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "*The processing time used by
> the technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy, AppSense, and ISA
> Server, create an inaccurate representation of my browsing time, as the
> pages load and unload slower than they would on, for instance, my
> dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and
> inadmissible*"
>
> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that he
> actually knows what he is talking about.
>
> --
> "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."
>
> ** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
>
> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is
addressed.
> If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
> therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
> However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
> probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
> mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
> destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
> this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
> because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
> afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. *
>
> * The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
> information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's
a
> pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
> should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
> and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
> if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
> liability for transmission.
> *
>
> * In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
> please return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's
> brother's wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will
immediately
> refund you exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought
> when you went to Pets** ** At Home yesterday. *
>
> * We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
> running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
> event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
> responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or
> implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of receiving,
> or not, as the case may be, from time to time, notwithstanding all
> liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, hell, where was I...umm, no matter
> what happens, it is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR FAULT! *
>
> * The comments and opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of
my
> employer, who, if he knew I was sending emails and surfing the seamier
side
> of the Internet, would cut off my manhood and feed it to me for afternoon
> tea. *
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~  ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that

Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff

[Erik Goldoff]

depends on what the definition of 'is' is 

what a TOOL !

I say if he can provide empirical evidence or even officially recorded
precedence he should be set free, otherwise DOUBLE his punishment as a
bullsh*t penalty !!!



On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:58 AM, James Rankin  wrote:

> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen truly
> make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
>
> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in his
> words, "*optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix*", that the
> records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using Internet
> Explorer.
>
> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a "*dual-processor
> Mac*", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate, as
> the Mac "*works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
> henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
> Windows or Microsoft software*"
>
> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a
> contributory factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "*The processing
> time used by the technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy,
> AppSense, and ISA Server, create an inaccurate representation of my browsing
> time, as the pages load and unload slower than they would on, for instance,
> my dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and
> inadmissible*"
>
> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that he
> actually knows what he is talking about.
>
> --
> "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."
>
> ** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
>
> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed.
> If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
> therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
> However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
> probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
> mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
> destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
> this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
> because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
> afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. *
>
> * The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
> information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's a
> pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
> should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
> and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
> if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
> liability for transmission.
> *
>
> * In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
> please return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's
> brother's wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately
> refund you exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought
> when you went to Pets** ** At Home yesterday. *
>
> * We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
> running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
> event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
> responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or
> implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of receiving,
> or not, as the case may be, from time to time, notwithstanding all
> liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, hell, where was I...umm, no matter
> what happens, it is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR FAULT! *
>
> * The comments and opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of
> my employer, who, if he knew I was sending emails and surfing the seamier
> side of the Internet, would cut off my manhood and feed it to me for
> afternoon tea. *
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the 

Re: OT: Amusing legal stuff

[RichardMcClary]

The guy obviously does not use the same sig file as you.  Then again, 
perhaps that last part of the sig file hints at the nature of the 
disciplinary action.
--
richard

James Rankin  wrote on 07/01/2011 08:58:31 AM:

> We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
> Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has 
> risen truly make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a 
> dangerous thing"...
> 
> He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, 
> in his words, "optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix",
> that the records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was 
> not using Internet Explorer.
> 
> He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a "dual-
> processor Mac", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are
> inaccurate, as the Mac "works faster and more efficiently than 
> Windows machines, and henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot 
> be accurately recorded by Windows or Microsoft software"
> 
> Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a 
> contributory factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "The 
> processing time used by the technologies deployed at work, such as 
> Group Policy, AppSense, and ISA Server, create an inaccurate 
> representation of my browsing time, as the pages load and unload 
> slower than they would on, for instance, my dual-processor Mac, 
> therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and inadmissible"
> 
> I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal 
> that he actually knows what he is talking about.
> 
> -- 
> "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."
> 
> * IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *
> 
> This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is 
> addressed. If you have received this message it was obviously 
> addressed to you and therefore you can read it, even it we didn't 
> mean to send it to you. However, if the contents of this email make 
> no sense whatsoever then you probably were not the intended 
> recipient, or, alternatively, you are a mindless cretin; either way,
> you should immediately kill yourself and destroy your computer (not 
> necessarily in that order). Once you have taken this action, please 
> contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer, because you 
> just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide afterwards, 
> but I am starting to digress.. 
> The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of 
> the information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either
> way it's a pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to 
> dwell on. But should you have nothing better to do, please feel free
> to ruminate on it, and please pass on any concrete conclusions 
> should you find them. However, if you pass them on via email, be 
> sure to include a disclaimer regarding liability for transmission.
> In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, 
> then please return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your 
> mother's brother's wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we 
> will immediately refund you exactly half of what you paid for the 
> can of Whiskas you bought when you went to Pets At Home yesterday. 
> We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we 
> are running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be.
> In the event that you do get this message then please note that we 
> take no responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any 
> liability, tacit or implied, for any damage you may or may not incur
> as a result of receiving, or not, as the case may be, from time to 
> time, notwithstanding all liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, 
> hell, where was I...umm, no matter what happens, it is NOT, and 
> NEVER WILL BE, OUR FAULT! 
> The comments and opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those 
> of my employer, who, if he knew I was sending emails and surfing the
> seamier side of the Internet, would cut off my manhood and feed it 
> to me for afternoon tea. 
> 

> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
> 
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.
> com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Amusing legal stuff

[Evan Brastow]

Wow, sadly, I think I know that guy! He worked for me about 10 years ago... lol

But, in the end, HTTP requests are HTTP requests, regardless of what machine or 
browser they come from.

Evan


From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 9:59 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: OT: Amusing legal stuff

We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the Internet. 
He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen truly make me 
aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...

He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in his 
words, "optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix", that the records 
of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using Internet Explorer.

He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a "dual-processor 
Mac", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate, as the 
Mac "works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and henceforth 
creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by Windows or 
Microsoft software"

Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a contributory 
factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "The processing time used by the 
technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy, AppSense, and ISA Server, 
create an inaccurate representation of my browsing time, as the pages load and 
unload slower than they would on, for instance, my dual-processor Mac, 
therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and inadmissible"

I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that he 
actually knows what he is talking about.

--
"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."

* IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *

This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed. If 
you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and therefore 
you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you. However, if the 
contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you probably were not the 
intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a mindless cretin; either way, 
you should immediately kill yourself and destroy your computer (not necessarily 
in that order). Once you have taken this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, 
you can't use your computer, because you just destroyed it, and possibly also 
committed suicide afterwards, but I am starting to digress..

The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the 
information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's a 
pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But should 
you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it, and please 
pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However, if you pass 
them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding liability for 
transmission.

In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then please 
return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's brother's wife 
wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately refund you exactly 
half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought when you went to Pets 
At Home yesterday.

We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are running 
Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the event that you 
do get this message then please note that we take no responsibility for that 
either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or implied, for any damage you 
may or may not incur as a result of receiving, or not, as the case may be, from 
time to time, notwithstanding all liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, hell, 
where was I...umm, no matter what happens, it is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR 
FAULT!

The comments and opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of my 
employer, who, if he knew I was sending emails and surfing the seamier side of 
the Internet, would cut off my manhood and feed it to me for afternoon tea.


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com<mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com>
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

OT: Amusing legal stuff

[James Rankin]

We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for over-use of the
Internet. He is defending himself, and some of the points he has risen truly
make me aware of the fact "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...

He claims that, since he uses Firefox, and Microsoft ISA Server is, in his
words, "*optimized for use with Internet Explorer and Citrix*", that the
records of his web browsing cannot be accurate, as he was not using Internet
Explorer.

He also claims that when using VPN from home, as he was on a "*dual-processor
Mac*", that the timings recorded for his Internet usage are inaccurate, as
the Mac "*works faster and more efficiently than Windows machines, and
henceforth creates a skew in time that cannot be accurately recorded by
Windows or Microsoft software*"

Finally, he has named the restrictions on his work machine as a contributory
factor towards his over-use of the Internet. "*The processing time used by
the technologies deployed at work, such as Group Policy, AppSense, and ISA
Server, create an inaccurate representation of my browsing time, as the
pages load and unload slower than they would on, for instance, my
dual-processor Mac, therefore the evidence exhibited is inaccurate and
inadmissible*"

I hope he does not manage to convince the people on this tribunal that he
actually knows what he is talking about.

-- 
"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."

** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *

This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed.
If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. *

* The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's a
pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
liability for transmission.
*

* In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
please return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's
brother's wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately
refund you exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought
when you went to Pets** ** At Home yesterday. *

* We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or
implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of receiving,
or not, as the case may be, from time to time, notwithstanding all
liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, hell, where was I...umm, no matter
what happens, it is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR FAULT! *

* The comments and opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of my
employer, who, if he knew I was sending emails and surfing the seamier side
of the Internet, would cut off my manhood and feed it to me for afternoon
tea. *

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

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Amusing

[Michael B. Smith]

If so, that's not what we've been told...


From: Ken Schaefer [...@adopenstatic.com]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 9:00 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

So this doesn't have anything to do with a tricky bit of code that requires 
constant regression testing, and which bean counters wanted culled? I'm 
shocked... :-)

Cheers
Ken


From: Michael B. Smith [mich...@owa.smithcons.com]
Sent: Monday, 1 June 2009 1:10 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

The general plan here is to improve performance when you have large mailboxes.

"Most", but not all (granted) folks would say that it's OK to use more disk 
space if that effectively removes a key performance blocker.

SIS was designed and implemented when Exchange supported a SINGLE database and 
most companies were using 9 GB disks and processor power was tiny (think 50-75 
Mhz Pentiums). To implement SIS required that certain tables in that database 
be shared among all mailboxes in that database. This was an acceptable 
trade-off, then, as it allowed companies to eke out every possible byte from 
those small disks with their slow I/O.

However, that sharing made it impractical to support VLMs (very large 
mailboxes) due to the size of the index trees that resulted. In Exchange 2007, 
one of those tables was moved to a per-mailbox table instead of a per-database 
table (the message body table), the size of database pages was increased, and 
these improved supported for large mailboxes. This had the impact of removing 
SIS for message bodies.

However, contention and overall table size and total I/O requirements continued 
to limit the overall performance for VLMs.

In Exchange 2010, a couple of other tables are also moved to per-mailbox, 
notably the attachment table. The size of database pages is increased. These 
changes effectively make it possible to support VLMs for many mailboxes in a 
single exchange database; and to do so performantly. And cheaply - using much 
cheaper disk; since these changes significantly change the overall I/O profile 
for Exchange databases.

However, this change eliminates SIS.

For uncompressed attachments, these are now compressed. In Microsoft's tests, 
significantly more disk space was regained using attachment compression than 
was saved by SIS. Of course, that may not be true for all companies or stores.

Since AT LEAST Exchange 2003, Microsoft has been recommending (warning, if you 
read it another way) that companies do not use SIS in planning for their disk 
space requirements.

So, in summary: most of Microsoft's customers want very performant very large 
mailboxes. Microsoft is making the necessary changes to meet that desire.


From: Ben Scott [mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:06 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Steven M. Caesare
 wrote:
> Companies are seldom democracies, and as I think both scenarios
> illustrate, there indeed can be a "wrong".

  The thing is, in this case, It's not an internal policy decision.
It's Microsoft that's the dictator, and all their customers that are
the ones who aren't getting a vote.  That's generally considered a
poor way to do business.

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[Ken Schaefer]

So this doesn't have anything to do with a tricky bit of code that requires 
constant regression testing, and which bean counters wanted culled? I'm 
shocked... :-)

Cheers
Ken


From: Michael B. Smith [mich...@owa.smithcons.com]
Sent: Monday, 1 June 2009 1:10 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

The general plan here is to improve performance when you have large mailboxes.

"Most", but not all (granted) folks would say that it's OK to use more disk 
space if that effectively removes a key performance blocker.

SIS was designed and implemented when Exchange supported a SINGLE database and 
most companies were using 9 GB disks and processor power was tiny (think 50-75 
Mhz Pentiums). To implement SIS required that certain tables in that database 
be shared among all mailboxes in that database. This was an acceptable 
trade-off, then, as it allowed companies to eke out every possible byte from 
those small disks with their slow I/O.

However, that sharing made it impractical to support VLMs (very large 
mailboxes) due to the size of the index trees that resulted. In Exchange 2007, 
one of those tables was moved to a per-mailbox table instead of a per-database 
table (the message body table), the size of database pages was increased, and 
these improved supported for large mailboxes. This had the impact of removing 
SIS for message bodies.

However, contention and overall table size and total I/O requirements continued 
to limit the overall performance for VLMs.

In Exchange 2010, a couple of other tables are also moved to per-mailbox, 
notably the attachment table. The size of database pages is increased. These 
changes effectively make it possible to support VLMs for many mailboxes in a 
single exchange database; and to do so performantly. And cheaply - using much 
cheaper disk; since these changes significantly change the overall I/O profile 
for Exchange databases.

However, this change eliminates SIS.

For uncompressed attachments, these are now compressed. In Microsoft's tests, 
significantly more disk space was regained using attachment compression than 
was saved by SIS. Of course, that may not be true for all companies or stores.

Since AT LEAST Exchange 2003, Microsoft has been recommending (warning, if you 
read it another way) that companies do not use SIS in planning for their disk 
space requirements.

So, in summary: most of Microsoft's customers want very performant very large 
mailboxes. Microsoft is making the necessary changes to meet that desire.


From: Ben Scott [mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:06 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Steven M. Caesare
 wrote:
> Companies are seldom democracies, and as I think both scenarios
> illustrate, there indeed can be a "wrong".

  The thing is, in this case, It's not an internal policy decision.
It's Microsoft that's the dictator, and all their customers that are
the ones who aren't getting a vote.  That's generally considered a
poor way to do business.

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

Re: Amusing

[Candee Vaglica]

Who was actually paraphrasing Pauly.
;)

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Jonathan Link  wrote:
> I've said it before.
> To paraphrase Henry Hill in Goodfellas "F you, pay me."
>
>
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Ben Scott  wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Steven M. Caesare
>>  wrote:
>> > Companies are seldom democracies, and as I think both scenarios
>> > illustrate, there indeed can be a "wrong".
>>
>>  The thing is, in this case, It's not an internal policy decision.
>> It's Microsoft that's the dictator, and all their customers that are
>> the ones who aren't getting a vote.  That's generally considered a
>> poor way to do business.
>>
>> -- Ben
>>
>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
>> ~   ~
>
>
>
>

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

RE: Amusing

[Michael B. Smith]

The general plan here is to improve performance when you have large mailboxes.

"Most", but not all (granted) folks would say that it's OK to use more disk 
space if that effectively removes a key performance blocker.

SIS was designed and implemented when Exchange supported a SINGLE database and 
most companies were using 9 GB disks and processor power was tiny (think 50-75 
Mhz Pentiums). To implement SIS required that certain tables in that database 
be shared among all mailboxes in that database. This was an acceptable 
trade-off, then, as it allowed companies to eke out every possible byte from 
those small disks with their slow I/O.

However, that sharing made it impractical to support VLMs (very large 
mailboxes) due to the size of the index trees that resulted. In Exchange 2007, 
one of those tables was moved to a per-mailbox table instead of a per-database 
table (the message body table), the size of database pages was increased, and 
these improved supported for large mailboxes. This had the impact of removing 
SIS for message bodies.

However, contention and overall table size and total I/O requirements continued 
to limit the overall performance for VLMs.

In Exchange 2010, a couple of other tables are also moved to per-mailbox, 
notably the attachment table. The size of database pages is increased. These 
changes effectively make it possible to support VLMs for many mailboxes in a 
single exchange database; and to do so performantly. And cheaply - using much 
cheaper disk; since these changes significantly change the overall I/O profile 
for Exchange databases.

However, this change eliminates SIS.

For uncompressed attachments, these are now compressed. In Microsoft's tests, 
significantly more disk space was regained using attachment compression than 
was saved by SIS. Of course, that may not be true for all companies or stores.

Since AT LEAST Exchange 2003, Microsoft has been recommending (warning, if you 
read it another way) that companies do not use SIS in planning for their disk 
space requirements.

So, in summary: most of Microsoft's customers want very performant very large 
mailboxes. Microsoft is making the necessary changes to meet that desire.


From: Ben Scott [mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:06 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Steven M. Caesare
 wrote:
> Companies are seldom democracies, and as I think both scenarios
> illustrate, there indeed can be a "wrong".

  The thing is, in this case, It's not an internal policy decision.
It's Microsoft that's the dictator, and all their customers that are
the ones who aren't getting a vote.  That's generally considered a
poor way to do business.

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[Steven M. Caesare]

Eh?

Use it as you like. The system design targets specific functionality. In
this case MS's direction for Exch2010 is improving I/O ops which will
benefit some organizations. This will likely come at the expense of disk
space requirement which will adversely affect other organizations.

Not all products can be all things for all people.

As far as I can see, nobody said it was categorically wrong to use
Exchange this way. It may be wrong for organizations that have
constraints regarding space usage, backup windows, etc... but those are
decisions you get to make.

By all means, store what you want in it. Or use the product you feel is
best for you, even if that means a previous version of Exchange.

People were upset when MS dropped NT support for Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC
too... but design considerations change. 

-sc

-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 12:40 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Steven M. Caesare
 wrote:
> You can continue to use Exchange as a filesystem.

  That's your answer to everything.  Too many mass emails?  We're
using it wrong.  Too many old emails?  We're using it wrong.  Too many
attachments?  We're using it wrong.  At what point will we get to,
"Exchange is a great product, as long as you don't use it for
anything."?

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

Re: Amusing

[Ben Scott]

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Steven M. Caesare
 wrote:
> You can continue to use Exchange as a filesystem.

  That's your answer to everything.  Too many mass emails?  We're
using it wrong.  Too many old emails?  We're using it wrong.  Too many
attachments?  We're using it wrong.  At what point will we get to,
"Exchange is a great product, as long as you don't use it for
anything."?

-- Ben

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

RE: Amusing

[John Hornbuckle]

Yes, it was stated as a general ideology. But general ideologies don't apply to 
every situation. I think it should be clear that I wasn't advocating IT 
allowing users to do whatever they wanted in any situation, regardless of the 
impact on network security and performance.




John




From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:55 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

The statement was:

"Who says what's "right," though? That brings us back to trying to force humans 
to adapt to technology rather than designing technology for the way users work."

That was stated a general ideology.

So you may say that in this context there was no reason to categorize the 
behavior as "wrong" (although you seemed to leave out the third leg of my 
concern, recoverability, which in Harris' example to which you responded would 
be a significant issues if users were allowed to store "everything" in their 
mailboxes.)

I gave you a quick example of why we are in a position to say what is "wrong" 
to do. And I could easily come up with dozens of others. You'll notice I never 
said we shouldn't provide effective alternatives. But your response 
demonstrates that we often do have to call something "wrong" for very valid 
reasons.

-sc





~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[Steven M. Caesare]

Not really. 

There are always limits in scope for a product. Both in design
intention, and in practical implementation.

You can continue to use Exchange as a filesystem. If you do so, you'll
gain significant performance via reduced I/O. The tradeoff is possibly
larger disk requirements.

-sc

-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:06 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Steven M. Caesare
 wrote:
> Companies are seldom democracies, and as I think both scenarios
> illustrate, there indeed can be a "wrong".

  The thing is, in this case, It's not an internal policy decision.
It's Microsoft that's the dictator, and all their customers that are
the ones who aren't getting a vote.  That's generally considered a
poor way to do business.

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

Re: Amusing

[Jonathan Link]

I've said it before.
To paraphrase Henry Hill in Goodfellas "F you, pay me."



On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Ben Scott  wrote:

> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Steven M. Caesare
>  wrote:
> > Companies are seldom democracies, and as I think both scenarios
> > illustrate, there indeed can be a "wrong".
>
>  The thing is, in this case, It's not an internal policy decision.
> It's Microsoft that's the dictator, and all their customers that are
> the ones who aren't getting a vote.  That's generally considered a
> poor way to do business.
>
> -- Ben
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>

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

Re: Amusing

[Ben Scott]

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Steven M. Caesare
 wrote:
> Companies are seldom democracies, and as I think both scenarios
> illustrate, there indeed can be a "wrong".

  The thing is, in this case, It's not an internal policy decision.
It's Microsoft that's the dictator, and all their customers that are
the ones who aren't getting a vote.  That's generally considered a
poor way to do business.

-- Ben

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

RE: Amusing

[Steven M. Caesare]

It's all good.

 

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 6:47 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

 

1) I wasn't really involved in this thread.

2) I certainly didn't say anything to you directly that would've
required an apology, I think you're mistaking me for someone else.  I
was making the point that we work within a framework of the organization
with the goal to maximize end user's productivity within that framework.

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Steven M. Caesare
 wrote:

Good, good... we agree that some things are indeed 'wrong" from a
corporate perspective.

 

Apology accepted. 

 

 

-sc

 

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 9:47 AM 


To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

 

As IT professionals, we are resposible for all facets of technology in
the enterprise.  User interaction with technoogy is but one part of the
equation.  For example you mentioned USB keys and the VPN.  USB based
memory could be a security issue in many organizations, and it would be
IT's responsibility to implement solutions to deny their use.  With a
VPN selected users could be chose to have or not have access depedning
upon the organization's needs, and it can even be more selectively
enforced so only certain equipment is able to connect.  Taking the
aforementioned steps could hamper a user's ability to work, but  is a
necessary side-effect to meet an organizational goal.  The example is
simplistic and neglects other methods for distributing data outside of
the enterprise.

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Steven M. Caesare
 wrote:

The statement was: 

 

"Who says what's "right," though? That brings us back to trying to force
humans to adapt to technology rather than designing technology for the
way users work."

 

That was stated a general ideology.

 

So you may say that in this context there was no reason to categorize
the behavior as "wrong" (although you seemed to leave out the third leg
of my concern, recoverability, which in Harris' example to which you
responded would be a significant issues if users were allowed to store
"everything" in their mailboxes.)

 

I gave you a quick example of why we are in a position to say what is
"wrong" to do. And I could easily come up with dozens of others. You'll
notice I never said we shouldn't provide effective alternatives. But
your response demonstrates that we often do have to call something
"wrong" for very valid reasons.

 

-sc

 

From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] 
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 7:22 AM 


To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

I agree-but in this context, we weren't talking about behavior that was
compromising network stability or organizational security.

 

In the case you give, we as IT pros need to look at why users would
prefer USB storage to VPN-ing. Is it because VPN is to slow? Too
complicated? Too unreliable? Let's understand the underlying behavioral
issues, and develop an answer that meets the user's needs. It may
involve changing encrypting the data on the USB key. If encryption on
the key isn't possible or is viewed as less safe than the VPN
connection, then we've got to make the VPN connection as fast, easy, and
reliable as the USB key is for them.

 

 

John

 

 

From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:26 PM 


To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

I think when employee behavior compromises the ability to maintain a
stable network and/or effectively store/manage/recover stat within the
constraints (financial or otherwise) that the company imposes, it's
"wrong" for that organization.

 

Would you say storing critical data on USB keys instead of the redundant
and backed up file server is "wrong" even if employees find it
convenient to not have to VPN in?

 

I would.

 

-sc

 

 

From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] 

Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:05 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

Who says what's "right," though? That brings us back to trying to force
humans to adapt to technology rather than designing technology for the
way users work.

 

I used to fall more into the camp of believing that users needed to
adjust their ways to fit the technology. But as I've worked on my
Master's in MIS over the past year, I've done a lot of reading about
human-computer interaction, human behavior, employee motivation, and
related fields. My views have really shifted quite a bit.

 

 

 

John

 

 

From: Jon Harris [mailto:jk.har...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:58 AM 


To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

 

I agree with several ot

Re: Amusing

[Jonathan Link]

1) I wasn't really involved in this thread.
2) I certainly didn't say anything to you directly that would've required an
apology, I think you're mistaking me for someone else.  I was making the
point that we work within a framework of the organization with the goal to
maximize end user's productivity within that framework.

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Steven M. Caesare wrote:

>  Good, good… we agree that some things are indeed ‘wrong” from a corporate
> perspective.
>
>
>
> Apology accepted.
>
>
>
>
>
> -sc
>
>
>
> *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 30, 2009 9:47 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Amusing
>
>
>
> As IT professionals, we are resposible for all facets of technology in the
> enterprise.  User interaction with technoogy is but one part of the
> equation.  For example you mentioned USB keys and the VPN.  USB based memory
> could be a security issue in many organizations, and it would be IT's
> responsibility to implement solutions to deny their use.  With a VPN
> selected users could be chose to have or not have access depedning upon the
> organization's needs, and it can even be more selectively enforced so only
> certain equipment is able to connect.  Taking the aforementioned steps could
> hamper a user's ability to work, but  is a necessary side-effect to meet an
> organizational goal.  The example is simplistic and neglects other methods
> for distributing data outside of the enterprise.
>
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Steven M. Caesare 
> wrote:
>
> The statement was:
>
>
>
> *“Who says what’s “right,” though? That brings us back to trying to force
> humans to adapt to technology rather than designing technology for the way
> users work.”*
>
> * *
>
> That was stated a general ideology.
>
> * *
>
> So you may say that *in this context* there was no reason to categorize
> the behavior as “wrong” (although you seemed to leave out the third leg of
> my concern, *recoverability*, which in Harris’ example to which you
> responded would be a significant issues if users were allowed to store
> “everything” in their mailboxes.)
>
>
>
> I gave you a quick example of why we *are* in a position to say what is
> “wrong” to do. And I could easily come up with dozens of others. You’ll
> notice I never said we shouldn’t provide effective alternatives. But your
> response demonstrates that we often do have to call something “wrong” for
> very valid reasons.
>
>
>
> -sc
>
>
>
> *From:* John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us]
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 30, 2009 7:22 AM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Amusing
>
>
>
> I agree—but in this context, we weren’t talking about behavior that was
> compromising network stability or organizational security.
>
>
>
> In the case you give, we as IT pros need to look at why users would prefer
> USB storage to VPN-ing. Is it because VPN is to slow? Too complicated? Too
> unreliable? Let’s understand the underlying behavioral issues, and develop
> an answer that meets the user’s needs. It may involve changing encrypting
> the data on the USB key. If encryption on the key isn’t possible or is
> viewed as less safe than the VPN connection, then we’ve got to make the VPN
> connection as fast, easy, and reliable as the USB key is for them.
>
>
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2009 7:26 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Amusing
>
>
>
> I think when employee behavior compromises the ability to maintain a stable
> network and/or effectively store/manage/recover stat within the constraints
> (financial or otherwise) that the company imposes, it’s “wrong” for that
> organization.
>
>
>
> Would you say storing critical data on USB keys instead of the redundant
> and backed up file server is “wrong” even if employees find it convenient to
> not have to VPN in?
>
>
>
> I would.
>
>
>
> -sc
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2009 10:05 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Amusing
>
>
>
> Who says what’s “right,” though? That brings us back to trying to force
> humans to adapt to technology rather than designing technology for the way
> users work.
>
>
>
> I used to fall more into the camp of believing that users needed to adjust
> their ways to fit the technology. But as I’ve worked on my Master’s in MIS
> over the past year, I’ve d

RE: Amusing

[Brian Desmond]

> I do post some things, like the café menu, on a web page for employees to 
> access, so there are some cases where
> teaching employees to send out a message that 'there is a new menu posted on 
> the website' with a link would at least
> save the attachment from being mass distributed, but that wouldn't change the 
> SIS ratio.

Actually, yes it would. Exchange 2007 stopped single instancing message bodies 
so this only applies to Exchange 2003 and earlier.


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

c - 312.731.3132

From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org]
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 12:49 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

Not really.  I am basically a 1 person IT department with 1 other person 
helping me with PC maintenance, for 200 users at 10 locations, so I have a long 
list of things I  want to /need to/ should do, but am very short on the time 
and resources I need to get it all done.  Especially since I am working at a 
non-profit.  (End of 'poor me' whining.)

I do think that sending out an 'all employees' email is viewed by most people 
as the fastest, most effective way to get an announcement or notification out 
to everyone. So I don't see that really diminishing much.  I do post some 
things, like the café menu, on a web page for employees to access, so there are 
some cases where teaching employees to send out a message that 'there is a new 
menu posted on the website' with a link would at least save the attachment from 
being mass distributed, but that wouldn't change the SIS ratio.

I think, after reading the messages in this thread as well as the MS article 
cited, the biggest behavior affecting the SIS ratio in my organization is 
people not cleaning messages out of their mailboxes.  We have people who keep 
everything for years.  Past efforts to use mailbox manager to delete messages 
over a certain age have been nixed by the CEO and the rest of the admin team.  
Time to fight that battle again, I guess.

As usual, reading messages on this list is instructive.  Definitely the 
solution, as is often the case, better user training and providing better 
alternatives that they will readily accept.

Ralph



From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 12:40 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

I was being (somewhat) facetious.

Menus? Do you guys do intranet?

-sc

From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 11:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

There are some "all employees" messages sent out - for example the HR dept 
sends out a monthly newsletter now through email instead of distributing hard 
copy.  The cafeteria often sends out daily specials or menus to all employees.
We get a lot of messages sent from various state agencies that may go to twenty 
or thirty people within our agency, often with attachments.  There are a lot of 
people within our agency who are on the same external mailing lists, so there 
is probably some duplication there.

Overall I don't think the "all employees" messages are that excessive - I se 
maybe 5 or 10 a week.


From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:24 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

Good lord.

Do you guys simply email everything to the "all employees" DL instead of 
sending individual emails?

-sc

From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:05 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

14.5 for 200 users.


From: Rob Bonfiglio [mailto:robbonfig...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:02 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

5.25 for roughly 350 users.
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:33 AM, David Mazzaccaro 
mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com>> wrote:
Mine is at 40.  (150 users, 1 E2003 store)
Never thought to look at this particular perfmon counter before this
post.
Id' be interested to see what others are reporting


-Original Message-
From: Steven M. Caesare 
[mailto:scaes...@caesare.com<mailto:scaes...@caesare.com>]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:30 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

I bet if you look at your SIS ratio perf counter you won't see anything
near a 10x reduction.


-sc

-Original Message-
From: John Hornbuckle 
mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us>>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:13 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues 
mailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com>>
Subject: RE: Amusing

I'll have to ponder that one a bit. Not sure I like it. Disks may be
cheap, but eliminating SIS would cause storage requirements to increase
by an order of magnitude. The OP's situation is

RE: Amusing

[Steven M. Caesare]

That's why we need minions!

 

-sc

 

From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] 
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 1:49 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

Not really.  I am basically a 1 person IT department with 1 other person 
helping me with PC maintenance, for 200 users at 10 locations, so I have a long 
list of things I  want to /need to/ should do, but am very short on the time 
and resources I need to get it all done.  Especially since I am working at a 
non-profit.  (End of 'poor me' whining.)

 

I do think that sending out an 'all employees' email is viewed by most people 
as the fastest, most effective way to get an announcement or notification out 
to everyone. So I don't see that really diminishing much.  I do post some 
things, like the café menu, on a web page for employees to access, so there are 
some cases where teaching employees to send out a message that 'there is a new 
menu posted on the website' with a link would at least save the attachment from 
being mass distributed, but that wouldn't change the SIS ratio.

 

I think, after reading the messages in this thread as well as the MS article 
cited, the biggest behavior affecting the SIS ratio in my organization is 
people not cleaning messages out of their mailboxes.  We have people who keep 
everything for years.  Past efforts to use mailbox manager to delete messages 
over a certain age have been nixed by the CEO and the rest of the admin team.  
Time to fight that battle again, I guess. 

 

As usual, reading messages on this list is instructive.  Definitely the 
solution, as is often the case, better user training and providing better 
alternatives that they will readily accept.

 

Ralph

 

 



From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 12:40 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

I was being (somewhat) facetious.

 

Menus? Do you guys do intranet?

 

-sc

 

From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 11:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

There are some "all employees" messages sent out - for example the HR dept 
sends out a monthly newsletter now through email instead of distributing hard 
copy.  The cafeteria often sends out daily specials or menus to all employees.

We get a lot of messages sent from various state agencies that may go to twenty 
or thirty people within our agency, often with attachments.  There are a lot of 
people within our agency who are on the same external mailing lists, so there 
is probably some duplication there.  

 

Overall I don't think the "all employees" messages are that excessive - I se 
maybe 5 or 10 a week.

 



From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:24 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

Good lord.

 

Do you guys simply email everything to the "all employees" DL instead of 
sending individual emails?

 

-sc

 

From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:05 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

14.5 for 200 users.

 



From: Rob Bonfiglio [mailto:robbonfig...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:02 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

 

5.25 for roughly 350 users.

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:33 AM, David Mazzaccaro 
 wrote:

Mine is at 40.  (150 users, 1 E2003 store)
Never thought to look at this particular perfmon counter before this
post.
Id' be interested to see what others are reporting



-Original Message-
From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:30 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: RE: Amusing

I bet if you look at your SIS ratio perf counter you won't see anything
near a 10x reduction.


-sc

-Original Message-
From: John Hornbuckle 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:13 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Subject: RE: Amusing

I'll have to ponder that one a bit. Not sure I like it. Disks may be
cheap, but eliminating SIS would cause storage requirements to increase
by an order of magnitude. The OP's situation is a prime example...
Suddenly a 9 MB storage requirement becomes 2.7 GB storage requirement
(if my math is right).







From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:10 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

3000x9



Disks are cheap, Exchange 2010 is designed to run RAID-less on large
SATA (e.g. 1TB) drives. 1 database per SATA drive - TX logs & DB on the
same volume.





Thanks,

Brian Desmond

br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132



Active Directory, 4th Ed - http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/
<http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/>

Microsoft MVP - https://mvp.

RE: Amusing

[Steven M. Caesare]

Good, good... we agree that some things are indeed 'wrong" from a
corporate perspective.

 

Apology accepted. 

 

 

-sc

 

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 9:47 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

 

As IT professionals, we are resposible for all facets of technology in
the enterprise.  User interaction with technoogy is but one part of the
equation.  For example you mentioned USB keys and the VPN.  USB based
memory could be a security issue in many organizations, and it would be
IT's responsibility to implement solutions to deny their use.  With a
VPN selected users could be chose to have or not have access depedning
upon the organization's needs, and it can even be more selectively
enforced so only certain equipment is able to connect.  Taking the
aforementioned steps could hamper a user's ability to work, but  is a
necessary side-effect to meet an organizational goal.  The example is
simplistic and neglects other methods for distributing data outside of
the enterprise.

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Steven M. Caesare
 wrote:

The statement was: 

 

"Who says what's "right," though? That brings us back to trying to force
humans to adapt to technology rather than designing technology for the
way users work."

 

That was stated a general ideology.

 

So you may say that in this context there was no reason to categorize
the behavior as "wrong" (although you seemed to leave out the third leg
of my concern, recoverability, which in Harris' example to which you
responded would be a significant issues if users were allowed to store
"everything" in their mailboxes.)

 

I gave you a quick example of why we are in a position to say what is
"wrong" to do. And I could easily come up with dozens of others. You'll
notice I never said we shouldn't provide effective alternatives. But
your response demonstrates that we often do have to call something
"wrong" for very valid reasons.

 

-sc

 

From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] 
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 7:22 AM 


To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

I agree-but in this context, we weren't talking about behavior that was
compromising network stability or organizational security.

 

In the case you give, we as IT pros need to look at why users would
prefer USB storage to VPN-ing. Is it because VPN is to slow? Too
complicated? Too unreliable? Let's understand the underlying behavioral
issues, and develop an answer that meets the user's needs. It may
involve changing encrypting the data on the USB key. If encryption on
the key isn't possible or is viewed as less safe than the VPN
connection, then we've got to make the VPN connection as fast, easy, and
reliable as the USB key is for them.

 

 

John

 

 

From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:26 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

I think when employee behavior compromises the ability to maintain a
stable network and/or effectively store/manage/recover stat within the
constraints (financial or otherwise) that the company imposes, it's
"wrong" for that organization.

 

Would you say storing critical data on USB keys instead of the redundant
and backed up file server is "wrong" even if employees find it
convenient to not have to VPN in?

 

I would.

 

-sc

 

 

From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:05 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

Who says what's "right," though? That brings us back to trying to force
humans to adapt to technology rather than designing technology for the
way users work.

 

I used to fall more into the camp of believing that users needed to
adjust their ways to fit the technology. But as I've worked on my
Master's in MIS over the past year, I've done a lot of reading about
human-computer interaction, human behavior, employee motivation, and
related fields. My views have really shifted quite a bit.

 

 

 

John

 

 

From: Jon Harris [mailto:jk.har...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:58 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

 

I agree with several others that said just because you can don't make it
right.  I have one user whinning that wants to store EVERYTHING in his
Exchange mailbox.  His box is 1 GB at the moment and he has been hinting
that he might like to have more.  I only get lucky in that we don't
control our email service some one else does and they have a hard and
fast rule that 1 GB is the max and most will only get 50 MB total.  Our
users for the most part are use to using PST's to store their stuff and
understand the (old) rule of 4 GB max in the PST.  They know that when
they blow the limit I don'

RE: Amusing

[Ralph Smith]

Not really.  I am basically a 1 person IT department with 1 other person 
helping me with PC maintenance, for 200 users at 10 locations, so I have a long 
list of things I  want to /need to/ should do, but am very short on the time 
and resources I need to get it all done.  Especially since I am working at a 
non-profit.  (End of 'poor me' whining.)

 

I do think that sending out an 'all employees' email is viewed by most people 
as the fastest, most effective way to get an announcement or notification out 
to everyone. So I don't see that really diminishing much.  I do post some 
things, like the café menu, on a web page for employees to access, so there are 
some cases where teaching employees to send out a message that 'there is a new 
menu posted on the website' with a link would at least save the attachment from 
being mass distributed, but that wouldn't change the SIS ratio.

 

I think, after reading the messages in this thread as well as the MS article 
cited, the biggest behavior affecting the SIS ratio in my organization is 
people not cleaning messages out of their mailboxes.  We have people who keep 
everything for years.  Past efforts to use mailbox manager to delete messages 
over a certain age have been nixed by the CEO and the rest of the admin team.  
Time to fight that battle again, I guess. 

 

As usual, reading messages on this list is instructive.  Definitely the 
solution, as is often the case, better user training and providing better 
alternatives that they will readily accept.

 

Ralph

 

 



From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 12:40 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

I was being (somewhat) facetious.

 

Menus? Do you guys do intranet?

 

-sc

 

From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 11:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

There are some "all employees" messages sent out - for example the HR dept 
sends out a monthly newsletter now through email instead of distributing hard 
copy.  The cafeteria often sends out daily specials or menus to all employees.

We get a lot of messages sent from various state agencies that may go to twenty 
or thirty people within our agency, often with attachments.  There are a lot of 
people within our agency who are on the same external mailing lists, so there 
is probably some duplication there.  

 

Overall I don't think the "all employees" messages are that excessive - I se 
maybe 5 or 10 a week.

 



From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:24 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

Good lord.

 

Do you guys simply email everything to the "all employees" DL instead of 
sending individual emails?

 

-sc

 

From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:05 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

14.5 for 200 users.

 



From: Rob Bonfiglio [mailto:robbonfig...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:02 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

 

5.25 for roughly 350 users.

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:33 AM, David Mazzaccaro 
 wrote:

Mine is at 40.  (150 users, 1 E2003 store)
Never thought to look at this particular perfmon counter before this
post.
Id' be interested to see what others are reporting



-Original Message-
From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:30 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: RE: Amusing

I bet if you look at your SIS ratio perf counter you won't see anything
near a 10x reduction.


-sc

-Original Message-
From: John Hornbuckle 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:13 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Subject: RE: Amusing

I'll have to ponder that one a bit. Not sure I like it. Disks may be
cheap, but eliminating SIS would cause storage requirements to increase
by an order of magnitude. The OP's situation is a prime example...
Suddenly a 9 MB storage requirement becomes 2.7 GB storage requirement
(if my math is right).







From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:10 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

3000x9



Disks are cheap, Exchange 2010 is designed to run RAID-less on large
SATA (e.g. 1TB) drives. 1 database per SATA drive - TX logs & DB on the
same volume.





Thanks,

Brian Desmond

br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132



Active Directory, 4th Ed - http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/
<http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/>

Microsoft MVP - https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian
<https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian>



From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us]

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:57

RE: Amusing

[Carl Houseman]

I'm not sure why you would mistake my original comment for anything but an
opinion piece, based on what I know of programming and bean counters.  I was
clearly not making any "claim" - my disclaimer was right there when I said
"It's more than likely ...".

 

People make unsubstantiated claims or guesses about "what was MS thinking"
all the time in discussions such as the one we had today.  And it's not
really about discovering the secret truth about what they were thinking.
It's about encouraging them to re-think a decision that apparently* was made
in a vacuum.  You can bet they hear us when we all say the same thing, no
special contact through back channels needed.

 

Carl

 

* another disclaimer word

 

From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 12:08 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

Hi Carl,

 

You were the one putting the claim out there. It appears to be
unsubstantiated. Saying "disprove me, or otherwise I'll continued saying
this is the reason" isn't a very scientific way of approaching the issue
IMHO.

 

I'd get to know the appropriate people on the Exchange team - maybe via some
Exchange MVPs or similar and then get some real reasons. That's what I do
for IIS issues.

 

Cheers

Ken

 

  _  

From: Carl Houseman [c.house...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 30 May 2009 12:24 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

If I'm wrong, I welcome an informed source to say so and reveal the complete
and unfiltered decision process for why a working feature with positive
benefits to many was removed.  Not that that would ever happen of course,
because an informed source would be prevented from airing anything with
negative public relations consequences.  In short we'll never know the full
story.

 

As for "don't buy the product if you don't like it", that kind of thinking
on the part of a vendor results in fewer customers.

 

Probably they're thinking/hoping that those more impacted - small(er)
businesses - will migrate to Exchange cloud services hosted by datacenters
where the cost is reduced.  I'm still suspicious of the whole cloud thing as
a new way of life, particularly when the connection to the cloud is lost or
the cloud has an unexpected PEBKAC moment.  Remember Google going offline
the other day?

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/164946/google_outage_lesson_dont_get_stuck_in
_a_cloud.html

 

Carl

 

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:55 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

"The thing they're eliminating is a

bunch of tricky code the programmers don't like and which needs a lot of

regression testing with each new release."

 

Do you have any actual information from informed sources on this? Or this
just your backside driving?

 

Maybe the code is shared with RIS grovelling which got changed in Win2k8 to
SIS service. Or maybe there are other challenges to getting it to work.
Given Microsoft's bending over backwards to keep previous features there, I
doubt it's just "we don't want a programmer to work on it" - there has got
to be more to it IMHO. Whether that's analysis of scalability complaints
(disk I/O perf in current versions of Exchange), analysis of where disk
storage is going (disk space in the cheap category that has decent I/O -
i.e. SATA 2/3 disks that kill old SCSI disks) or whatever. 

 

I'd check out www.storagereview.com to see how current SATA2 disks kill
older SCSI and even SAS disks perf wise. Whilst the argument might not be
clear-cut right now, in 3/4/5 years time I think the situation will be clear
given the current trends. You'll be able to buy a 10TB SATA4 disk that will
provide better IOPS than a current SAS disk for far less cost, and sending a
3MB email will be a rounding error in your disk storage calculations.

 

But, as always, if you don't like it, don't buy the product. And Microsoft
may change its mind.

 

Cheers

Ken

 



From: Carl Houseman [c.house...@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 11:44 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: RE: Amusing

 

As for memory/CPU, does eliminating SIS mean lower RAM or slower CPU

requirements for the product?  Doubtful.  The thing they're eliminating is a

bunch of tricky code the programmers don't like and which needs a lot of

regression testing with each new release.  You won't find anyone to admit

that, but it's more than likely a major factor in the decision, with a nod

from the bean counters who are already projecting savings from reduced

staffing.

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

Re: Amusing

[Jonathan Link]

As IT professionals, we are resposible for all facets of technology in the
enterprise.  User interaction with technoogy is but one part of the
equation.  For example you mentioned USB keys and the VPN.  USB based memory
could be a security issue in many organizations, and it would be IT's
responsibility to implement solutions to deny their use.  With a VPN
selected users could be chose to have or not have access depedning upon the
organization's needs, and it can even be more selectively enforced so only
certain equipment is able to connect.  Taking the aforementioned steps could
hamper a user's ability to work, but  is a necessary side-effect to meet an
organizational goal.  The example is simplistic and neglects other methods
for distributing data outside of the enterprise.

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Steven M. Caesare wrote:

>  The statement was:
>
>
>
> *“**Who says what’s “right,” though? That brings us back to trying to
> force humans to adapt to technology rather than designing technology for the
> way users work.”*
>
> * *
>
> That was stated a general ideology.
>
> * *
>
> So you may say that *in this context* there was no reason to categorize
> the behavior as “wrong” (although you seemed to leave out the third leg of
> my concern, *recoverability*, which in Harris’ example to which you
> responded would be a significant issues if users were allowed to store
> “everything” in their mailboxes.)
>
>
>
> I gave you a quick example of why we *are* in a position to say what is
> “wrong” to do. And I could easily come up with dozens of others. You’ll
> notice I never said we shouldn’t provide effective alternatives. But your
> response demonstrates that we often do have to call something “wrong” for
> very valid reasons.
>
>
>
> -sc
>
>
>
> *From:* John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us]
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 30, 2009 7:22 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Amusing
>
>
>
> I agree—but in this context, we weren’t talking about behavior that was
> compromising network stability or organizational security.
>
>
>
> In the case you give, we as IT pros need to look at why users would prefer
> USB storage to VPN-ing. Is it because VPN is to slow? Too complicated? Too
> unreliable? Let’s understand the underlying behavioral issues, and develop
> an answer that meets the user’s needs. It may involve changing encrypting
> the data on the USB key. If encryption on the key isn’t possible or is
> viewed as less safe than the VPN connection, then we’ve got to make the VPN
> connection as fast, easy, and reliable as the USB key is for them.
>
>
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2009 7:26 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Amusing
>
>
>
> I think when employee behavior compromises the ability to maintain a stable
> network and/or effectively store/manage/recover stat within the constraints
> (financial or otherwise) that the company imposes, it’s “wrong” for that
> organization.
>
>
>
> Would you say storing critical data on USB keys instead of the redundant
> and backed up file server is “wrong” even if employees find it convenient to
> not have to VPN in?
>
>
>
> I would.
>
>
>
> -sc
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2009 10:05 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Amusing
>
>
>
> Who says what’s “right,” though? That brings us back to trying to force
> humans to adapt to technology rather than designing technology for the way
> users work.
>
>
>
> I used to fall more into the camp of believing that users needed to adjust
> their ways to fit the technology. But as I’ve worked on my Master’s in MIS
> over the past year, I’ve done a lot of reading about human-computer
> interaction, human behavior, employee motivation, and related fields. My
> views have really shifted quite a bit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jon Harris [mailto:jk.har...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2009 9:58 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Amusing
>
>
>
> I agree with several others that said just because you can don't make it
> right.  I have one user whinning that wants to store EVERYTHING in his
> Exchange mailbox.  His box is 1 GB at the moment and he has been hinting
> that he might like to have more.  I only get lucky in that we don't control
> our email service some one else does and they have a hard and fast rule that
> 1 GB is the max and most will only g

RE: Amusing

[Steven M. Caesare]

The statement was: 

 

"Who says what's "right," though? That brings us back to trying to force
humans to adapt to technology rather than designing technology for the
way users work."

 

That was stated a general ideology.

 

So you may say that in this context there was no reason to categorize
the behavior as "wrong" (although you seemed to leave out the third leg
of my concern, recoverability, which in Harris' example to which you
responded would be a significant issues if users were allowed to store
"everything" in their mailboxes.)

 

I gave you a quick example of why we are in a position to say what is
"wrong" to do. And I could easily come up with dozens of others. You'll
notice I never said we shouldn't provide effective alternatives. But
your response demonstrates that we often do have to call something
"wrong" for very valid reasons.

 

-sc

 

From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] 
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 7:22 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

I agree-but in this context, we weren't talking about behavior that was
compromising network stability or organizational security.

 

In the case you give, we as IT pros need to look at why users would
prefer USB storage to VPN-ing. Is it because VPN is to slow? Too
complicated? Too unreliable? Let's understand the underlying behavioral
issues, and develop an answer that meets the user's needs. It may
involve changing encrypting the data on the USB key. If encryption on
the key isn't possible or is viewed as less safe than the VPN
connection, then we've got to make the VPN connection as fast, easy, and
reliable as the USB key is for them.

 

 

John

 

 

From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:26 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

I think when employee behavior compromises the ability to maintain a
stable network and/or effectively store/manage/recover stat within the
constraints (financial or otherwise) that the company imposes, it's
"wrong" for that organization.

 

Would you say storing critical data on USB keys instead of the redundant
and backed up file server is "wrong" even if employees find it
convenient to not have to VPN in?

 

I would.

 

-sc

 

 

From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:05 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

Who says what's "right," though? That brings us back to trying to force
humans to adapt to technology rather than designing technology for the
way users work.

 

I used to fall more into the camp of believing that users needed to
adjust their ways to fit the technology. But as I've worked on my
Master's in MIS over the past year, I've done a lot of reading about
human-computer interaction, human behavior, employee motivation, and
related fields. My views have really shifted quite a bit.

 

 

 

John

 

 

From: Jon Harris [mailto:jk.har...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:58 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

 

I agree with several others that said just because you can don't make it
right.  I have one user whinning that wants to store EVERYTHING in his
Exchange mailbox.  His box is 1 GB at the moment and he has been hinting
that he might like to have more.  I only get lucky in that we don't
control our email service some one else does and they have a hard and
fast rule that 1 GB is the max and most will only get 50 MB total.  Our
users for the most part are use to using PST's to store their stuff and
understand the (old) rule of 4 GB max in the PST.  They know that when
they blow the limit I don't fix the PST I delete it.  (I actually just
remove the file from the system and store it unless it is urgent.)  One
blown PST per year reminds them use the server for exchanging files not
email.  In some ways us being behind for so long is a blessing.  They
use to have open shares on every desktop and laptop until they lost
several weeks worth of work when the user "owning" the file turned off
the machine with other users using files on the machine.  That got us
our first real server.  Now they would not even think to ask for open
shares on their machines.

 

My being an a$$ helps a lot as well.  I love to say "I told you so" with
a big smile on my face.

 

Jon

 


 

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Carl Houseman 
wrote:

9GB SCSI disks?  I hope they're still stuck on Exchange 2000 as well...
Swapping out 73GB or 150GB SCSI disks hopefully!

As for memory/CPU, does eliminating SIS mean lower RAM or slower CPU
requirements for the product?  Doubtful.  The thing they're eliminating
is a
bunch of tricky code the programmers don't like and which needs a lot of
regression testing w

RE: Amusing

[John Hornbuckle]

I agree-but in this context, we weren't talking about behavior that was 
compromising network stability or organizational security.

In the case you give, we as IT pros need to look at why users would prefer USB 
storage to VPN-ing. Is it because VPN is to slow? Too complicated? Too 
unreliable? Let's understand the underlying behavioral issues, and develop an 
answer that meets the user's needs. It may involve changing encrypting the data 
on the USB key. If encryption on the key isn't possible or is viewed as less 
safe than the VPN connection, then we've got to make the VPN connection as 
fast, easy, and reliable as the USB key is for them.


John


From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:26 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

I think when employee behavior compromises the ability to maintain a stable 
network and/or effectively store/manage/recover stat within the constraints 
(financial or otherwise) that the company imposes, it's "wrong" for that 
organization.

Would you say storing critical data on USB keys instead of the redundant and 
backed up file server is "wrong" even if employees find it convenient to not 
have to VPN in?

I would.

-sc


From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:05 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

Who says what's "right," though? That brings us back to trying to force humans 
to adapt to technology rather than designing technology for the way users work.

I used to fall more into the camp of believing that users needed to adjust 
their ways to fit the technology. But as I've worked on my Master's in MIS over 
the past year, I've done a lot of reading about human-computer interaction, 
human behavior, employee motivation, and related fields. My views have really 
shifted quite a bit.



John


From: Jon Harris [mailto:jk.har...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:58 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

I agree with several others that said just because you can don't make it right. 
 I have one user whinning that wants to store EVERYTHING in his Exchange 
mailbox.  His box is 1 GB at the moment and he has been hinting that he might 
like to have more.  I only get lucky in that we don't control our email service 
some one else does and they have a hard and fast rule that 1 GB is the max and 
most will only get 50 MB total.  Our users for the most part are use to using 
PST's to store their stuff and understand the (old) rule of 4 GB max in the 
PST.  They know that when they blow the limit I don't fix the PST I delete it.  
(I actually just remove the file from the system and store it unless it is 
urgent.)  One blown PST per year reminds them use the server for exchanging 
files not email.  In some ways us being behind for so long is a blessing.  They 
use to have open shares on every desktop and laptop until they lost several 
weeks worth of work when the user "owning" the file turned off the machine with 
other users using files on the machine.  That got us our first real server.  
Now they would not even think to ask for open shares on their machines.

My being an a$$ helps a lot as well.  I love to say "I told you so" with a big 
smile on my face.

Jon



On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Carl Houseman 
mailto:c.house...@gmail.com>> wrote:
9GB SCSI disks?  I hope they're still stuck on Exchange 2000 as well...
Swapping out 73GB or 150GB SCSI disks hopefully!

As for memory/CPU, does eliminating SIS mean lower RAM or slower CPU
requirements for the product?  Doubtful.  The thing they're eliminating is a
bunch of tricky code the programmers don't like and which needs a lot of
regression testing with each new release.  You won't find anyone to admit
that, but it's more than likely a major factor in the decision, with a nod
from the bean counters who are already projecting savings from reduced
staffing.

Carl

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com<mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com>]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:28 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing
The harm might be increased CPU or memory usage, reduced scalability etc.

Whilst you can quantify some direct benefits (more disks), I assume that
most people will be swapping 9GB SCSI disks for new 1TB SATA2 disks that
probably consume a bunch less power. Additionally the increased productivity
if features are deployed correctly will, IMHO, save a bunch of energy.

People are point the finger at data center power and cooling requirements,
but look at how IT has transformed business - everything from online banking
to systems that more effeciently route FedEd/DHL drivers to save time and
energy.

We really don't have enough information. I suspect that this is based on
analysis

RE: Amusing

[Steven M. Caesare]

I was being (somewhat) facetious.

 

Menus? Do you guys do intranet?

 

-sc

 

From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 11:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

There are some "all employees" messages sent out - for example the HR
dept sends out a monthly newsletter now through email instead of
distributing hard copy.  The cafeteria often sends out daily specials or
menus to all employees.

We get a lot of messages sent from various state agencies that may go to
twenty or thirty people within our agency, often with attachments.
There are a lot of people within our agency who are on the same external
mailing lists, so there is probably some duplication there.  

 

Overall I don't think the "all employees" messages are that excessive -
I se maybe 5 or 10 a week.

 



From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:24 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

Good lord.

 

Do you guys simply email everything to the "all employees" DL instead of
sending individual emails?

 

-sc

 

From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:05 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

14.5 for 200 users.

 



From: Rob Bonfiglio [mailto:robbonfig...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:02 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

 

5.25 for roughly 350 users.

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:33 AM, David Mazzaccaro
 wrote:

Mine is at 40.  (150 users, 1 E2003 store)
Never thought to look at this particular perfmon counter before this
post.
Id' be interested to see what others are reporting



-Original Message-
From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:30 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: RE: Amusing

I bet if you look at your SIS ratio perf counter you won't see anything
near a 10x reduction.


-sc

-Original Message-
From: John Hornbuckle 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:13 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Subject: RE: Amusing

I'll have to ponder that one a bit. Not sure I like it. Disks may be
cheap, but eliminating SIS would cause storage requirements to increase
by an order of magnitude. The OP's situation is a prime example...
Suddenly a 9 MB storage requirement becomes 2.7 GB storage requirement
(if my math is right).







From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:10 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

3000x9



Disks are cheap, Exchange 2010 is designed to run RAID-less on large
SATA (e.g. 1TB) drives. 1 database per SATA drive - TX logs & DB on the
same volume.





Thanks,

Brian Desmond

br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132



Active Directory, 4th Ed - http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/
<http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/>

Microsoft MVP - https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian
<https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian>



From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us]

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:57 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

How does Ex 2010 work regarding SIS? If it doesn't use it, does it use
some similar technology? Or would the OP's 9 MB file now take 3000x9 MB
of space?







John Hornbuckle

MIS Department

Taylor County School District

318 North Clark Street

Perry, FL 32347



www.taylor.k12.fl.us <http://www.taylor.k12.fl.us/> 










~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
<http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

 

 

 

 

Confidentiality Notice:

**

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Confidentiality Notice:

**

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

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[Ken Schaefer]

Hi Carl,

You were the one putting the claim out there. It appears to be unsubstantiated. 
Saying "disprove me, or otherwise I'll continued saying this is the reason" 
isn't a very scientific way of approaching the issue IMHO.

I'd get to know the appropriate people on the Exchange team - maybe via some 
Exchange MVPs or similar and then get some real reasons. That's what I do for 
IIS issues.

Cheers
Ken


From: Carl Houseman [c.house...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 30 May 2009 12:24 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing


If I’m wrong, I welcome an informed source to say so and reveal the complete 
and unfiltered decision process for why a working feature with positive 
benefits to many was removed.  Not that that would ever happen of course, 
because an informed source would be prevented from airing anything with 
negative public relations consequences.  In short we'll never know the full 
story.



As for "don’t buy the product if you don't like it", that kind of thinking on 
the part of a vendor results in fewer customers.



Probably they're thinking/hoping that those more impacted - small(er) 
businesses - will migrate to Exchange cloud services hosted by datacenters 
where the cost is reduced.  I'm still suspicious of the whole cloud thing as a 
new way of life, particularly when the connection to the cloud is lost or the 
cloud has an unexpected PEBKAC moment.  Remember Google going offline the other 
day?



http://www.pcworld.com/article/164946/google_outage_lesson_dont_get_stuck_in_a_cloud.html



Carl



-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:55 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing



"The thing they're eliminating is a

bunch of tricky code the programmers don't like and which needs a lot of

regression testing with each new release."



Do you have any actual information from informed sources on this? Or this just 
your backside driving?



Maybe the code is shared with RIS grovelling which got changed in Win2k8 to SIS 
service. Or maybe there are other challenges to getting it to work. Given 
Microsoft's bending over backwards to keep previous features there, I doubt 
it's just "we don't want a programmer to work on it" - there has got to be more 
to it IMHO. Whether that's analysis of scalability complaints (disk I/O perf in 
current versions of Exchange), analysis of where disk storage is going (disk 
space in the cheap category that has decent I/O - i.e. SATA 2/3 disks that kill 
old SCSI disks) or whatever.



I'd check out www.storagereview.com to see how current SATA2 disks kill older 
SCSI and even SAS disks perf wise. Whilst the argument might not be clear-cut 
right now, in 3/4/5 years time I think the situation will be clear given the 
current trends. You'll be able to buy a 10TB SATA4 disk that will provide 
better IOPS than a current SAS disk for far less cost, and sending a 3MB email 
will be a rounding error in your disk storage calculations.



But, as always, if you don't like it, don't buy the product. And Microsoft may 
change its mind.



Cheers

Ken



____

From: Carl Houseman [c.house...@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 11:44 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: RE: Amusing



As for memory/CPU, does eliminating SIS mean lower RAM or slower CPU

requirements for the product?  Doubtful.  The thing they're eliminating is a

bunch of tricky code the programmers don't like and which needs a lot of

regression testing with each new release.  You won't find anyone to admit

that, but it's more than likely a major factor in the decision, with a nod

from the bean counters who are already projecting savings from reduced

staffing.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[Ralph Smith]

There are some "all employees" messages sent out - for example the HR
dept sends out a monthly newsletter now through email instead of
distributing hard copy.  The cafeteria often sends out daily specials or
menus to all employees.

We get a lot of messages sent from various state agencies that may go to
twenty or thirty people within our agency, often with attachments.
There are a lot of people within our agency who are on the same external
mailing lists, so there is probably some duplication there.  

 

Overall I don't think the "all employees" messages are that excessive -
I se maybe 5 or 10 a week.

 



From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:24 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

Good lord.

 

Do you guys simply email everything to the "all employees" DL instead of
sending individual emails?

 

-sc

 

From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:05 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

14.5 for 200 users.

 



From: Rob Bonfiglio [mailto:robbonfig...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:02 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

 

5.25 for roughly 350 users.

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:33 AM, David Mazzaccaro
 wrote:

Mine is at 40.  (150 users, 1 E2003 store)
Never thought to look at this particular perfmon counter before this
post.
Id' be interested to see what others are reporting



-Original Message-
From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:30 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: RE: Amusing

I bet if you look at your SIS ratio perf counter you won't see anything
near a 10x reduction.


-sc

-Original Message-
From: John Hornbuckle 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:13 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Subject: RE: Amusing

I'll have to ponder that one a bit. Not sure I like it. Disks may be
cheap, but eliminating SIS would cause storage requirements to increase
by an order of magnitude. The OP's situation is a prime example...
Suddenly a 9 MB storage requirement becomes 2.7 GB storage requirement
(if my math is right).







From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:10 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

3000x9



Disks are cheap, Exchange 2010 is designed to run RAID-less on large
SATA (e.g. 1TB) drives. 1 database per SATA drive - TX logs & DB on the
same volume.





Thanks,

Brian Desmond

br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132



Active Directory, 4th Ed - http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/
<http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/>

Microsoft MVP - https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian
<https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian>



From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us]

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:57 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

How does Ex 2010 work regarding SIS? If it doesn't use it, does it use
some similar technology? Or would the OP's 9 MB file now take 3000x9 MB
of space?







John Hornbuckle

MIS Department

Taylor County School District

318 North Clark Street

Perry, FL 32347



www.taylor.k12.fl.us <http://www.taylor.k12.fl.us/> 











~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
<http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

 

 

 

 

Confidentiality Notice:

**

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

 

 

 

 

 

Confidentiality Notice: 

--



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

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[Steven M. Caesare]

And providing an alternative solution that may be just as workable
(albeit with training), such as storing data on
SharePoint/NAS/fileservers and emailing links rather than using exchange
as a filesystem is just as valid an alternative as your encrypted
laptops, and are just as "right" for a given company as using USB keys
are wrong.

Companies are seldom democracies, and as I think both scenarios
illustrate, there indeed can be a "wrong". 

That having been said, I certainly hope that striving to make users more
productive is an overriding goal... but one that shouldn't sacrifice
some semblance of structure.

-sc

-Original Message-
From: Charlie Kaiser [mailto:charl...@golden-eagle.org] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:58 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

One could also argue that if employee behavior frequently compromises
stability/safety/etc., then the underlying architecture may be
inappropriate
for that business. A more "useable" paradigm might be in order.

For example, instead of usb keys or VPN (to use your example), perhaps
local
cached copies and whole disk encryption for a take-home laptop might be
a
better alternative. Of course, there are always SOME no-nos; "Sorry; I
can't
let you hook up your kid's trojan-infested laptop to our network". :-)

While we all strive to build safe, secure networks, methinks that
sometimes
we as IT have a tendency to lose track of the non-IT user's perspective.
Gawd knows it's easy enough to do. We know a lot more about it than they
do,
but all they want to do is their work. I've always thought IT worked
best
when nobody realized it was there... :-)

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

> -Original Message-
> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:26 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Amusing
> 
> I think when employee behavior compromises the ability to 
> maintain a stable network and/or effectively 
> store/manage/recover stat within the constraints (financial 
> or otherwise) that the company imposes, it's "wrong" for that 
> organization.
> 
>  
> 
> Would you say storing critical data on USB keys instead of 
> the redundant and backed up file server is "wrong" even if 
> employees find it convenient to not have to VPN in?
> 
>  
> 
> I would.
> 
>  
> 
> -sc


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[Charlie Kaiser]

One could also argue that if employee behavior frequently compromises
stability/safety/etc., then the underlying architecture may be inappropriate
for that business. A more "useable" paradigm might be in order.

For example, instead of usb keys or VPN (to use your example), perhaps local
cached copies and whole disk encryption for a take-home laptop might be a
better alternative. Of course, there are always SOME no-nos; "Sorry; I can't
let you hook up your kid's trojan-infested laptop to our network". :-)

While we all strive to build safe, secure networks, methinks that sometimes
we as IT have a tendency to lose track of the non-IT user's perspective.
Gawd knows it's easy enough to do. We know a lot more about it than they do,
but all they want to do is their work. I've always thought IT worked best
when nobody realized it was there... :-)

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

> -Original Message-
> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:26 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Amusing
> 
> I think when employee behavior compromises the ability to 
> maintain a stable network and/or effectively 
> store/manage/recover stat within the constraints (financial 
> or otherwise) that the company imposes, it's "wrong" for that 
> organization.
> 
>  
> 
> Would you say storing critical data on USB keys instead of 
> the redundant and backed up file server is "wrong" even if 
> employees find it convenient to not have to VPN in?
> 
>  
> 
> I would.
> 
>  
> 
> -sc


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[Steven M. Caesare]

Perhaps time is the missing axis?

How old is that "40" box?

-sc

-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 11:05 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Jim Mediger  wrote:
> "Disk space savings from single instance storage are transient and
drop off
> very quickly over time."

  I believe that is misleading at best.  It may even be deliberate
propaganda to justify removing SIS.  We've had several people post
their SIS ratios in this thread, and only one has been anywhere close
to a ratio of 1.  Several have been 5 or more, and one was 40!  While
this isn't a scientific sample, it does suggest that SIS of real
benefit for at least some people.

  Again, I suspect Microsoft is viewing this problem from the
standpoint of large, multi-server shops, where you have lots of
servers and lots of databases.  In such cases, SIS can't help nearly
as much.  But for the single-server shops, I suspect it's a different
story entirely.

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[Steven M. Caesare]

I think when employee behavior compromises the ability to maintain a
stable network and/or effectively store/manage/recover stat within the
constraints (financial or otherwise) that the company imposes, it's
"wrong" for that organization.

 

Would you say storing critical data on USB keys instead of the redundant
and backed up file server is "wrong" even if employees find it
convenient to not have to VPN in?

 

I would.

 

-sc

 

 

From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:05 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

Who says what's "right," though? That brings us back to trying to force
humans to adapt to technology rather than designing technology for the
way users work.

 

I used to fall more into the camp of believing that users needed to
adjust their ways to fit the technology. But as I've worked on my
Master's in MIS over the past year, I've done a lot of reading about
human-computer interaction, human behavior, employee motivation, and
related fields. My views have really shifted quite a bit.

 

 

 

John

 

 

From: Jon Harris [mailto:jk.har...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:58 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

 

I agree with several others that said just because you can don't make it
right.  I have one user whinning that wants to store EVERYTHING in his
Exchange mailbox.  His box is 1 GB at the moment and he has been hinting
that he might like to have more.  I only get lucky in that we don't
control our email service some one else does and they have a hard and
fast rule that 1 GB is the max and most will only get 50 MB total.  Our
users for the most part are use to using PST's to store their stuff and
understand the (old) rule of 4 GB max in the PST.  They know that when
they blow the limit I don't fix the PST I delete it.  (I actually just
remove the file from the system and store it unless it is urgent.)  One
blown PST per year reminds them use the server for exchanging files not
email.  In some ways us being behind for so long is a blessing.  They
use to have open shares on every desktop and laptop until they lost
several weeks worth of work when the user "owning" the file turned off
the machine with other users using files on the machine.  That got us
our first real server.  Now they would not even think to ask for open
shares on their machines.

 

My being an a$$ helps a lot as well.  I love to say "I told you so" with
a big smile on my face.

 

Jon

 


 

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Carl Houseman 
wrote:

9GB SCSI disks?  I hope they're still stuck on Exchange 2000 as well...
Swapping out 73GB or 150GB SCSI disks hopefully!

As for memory/CPU, does eliminating SIS mean lower RAM or slower CPU
requirements for the product?  Doubtful.  The thing they're eliminating
is a
bunch of tricky code the programmers don't like and which needs a lot of
regression testing with each new release.  You won't find anyone to
admit
that, but it's more than likely a major factor in the decision, with a
nod
from the bean counters who are already projecting savings from reduced
staffing.

Carl


-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]

Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:28 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

The harm might be increased CPU or memory usage, reduced scalability
etc.

Whilst you can quantify some direct benefits (more disks), I assume that
most people will be swapping 9GB SCSI disks for new 1TB SATA2 disks that
probably consume a bunch less power. Additionally the increased
productivity
if features are deployed correctly will, IMHO, save a bunch of energy.

People are point the finger at data center power and cooling
requirements,
but look at how IT has transformed business - everything from online
banking
to systems that more effeciently route FedEd/DHL drivers to save time
and
energy.

We really don't have enough information. I suspect that this is based on
analysis of what's cost effective given real world data and complaints
about
the limitations of Exchange. We've had the same complaints about UAC or
Office 2007 ribbon UI, 16->32->64bit computing. But with a bit of
subsequent
tweaking, I'm sure we'll not want to go back to what we had before.

Cheers
Ken

________
From: Carl Houseman [c.house...@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 11:16 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

I have to agree.  What's the harm in leaving in a feature that is
working
perfectly well?   We see this all the time, working features removed
from
upgraded products.  They tried to do the same with PF's and we pushed
back,
and hopefully PF's will continue for the forseeable future.  I guess
it's
too late to reverse the decision on SIS, but MS nee

RE: Amusing

[Steven M. Caesare]

Good lord.

 

Do you guys simply email everything to the "all employees" DL instead of
sending individual emails?

 

-sc

 

From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:05 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

14.5 for 200 users.

 



From: Rob Bonfiglio [mailto:robbonfig...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:02 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

 

5.25 for roughly 350 users.

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:33 AM, David Mazzaccaro
 wrote:

Mine is at 40.  (150 users, 1 E2003 store)
Never thought to look at this particular perfmon counter before this
post.
Id' be interested to see what others are reporting



-Original Message-
From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:30 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: RE: Amusing

I bet if you look at your SIS ratio perf counter you won't see anything
near a 10x reduction.


-sc

-Original Message-
From: John Hornbuckle 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:13 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Subject: RE: Amusing

I'll have to ponder that one a bit. Not sure I like it. Disks may be
cheap, but eliminating SIS would cause storage requirements to increase
by an order of magnitude. The OP's situation is a prime example...
Suddenly a 9 MB storage requirement becomes 2.7 GB storage requirement
(if my math is right).







From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:10 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing



3000x9



Disks are cheap, Exchange 2010 is designed to run RAID-less on large
SATA (e.g. 1TB) drives. 1 database per SATA drive - TX logs & DB on the
same volume.





Thanks,

Brian Desmond

br...@briandesmond.com



c - 312.731.3132



Active Directory, 4th Ed - http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/
<http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/>

Microsoft MVP - https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian
<https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian>



From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us]

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:57 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing



How does Ex 2010 work regarding SIS? If it doesn't use it, does it use
some similar technology? Or would the OP's 9 MB file now take 3000x9 MB
of space?







John Hornbuckle

MIS Department

Taylor County School District

318 North Clark Street

Perry, FL 32347



www.taylor.k12.fl.us <http://www.taylor.k12.fl.us/> 












~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
<http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

 

 

 

 

Confidentiality Notice:

**

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

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[Steven M. Caesare]

FWIW I tend to agree about feature set. If there's an architectural
reason requiring removal then so be it, provided the additional benefits
offset the feature (perhaps compression?). Or if nobody is using it (why
MS maintains a WordStar compatibility mode in Word 2007 is beyond me).

But removing a feature that is delivering some benefit and known to be
used in the wild, when your shiny new architecture may have allowed for
it, just serves to alienate people.

I don't know if there are architectural decisions that could have
preserved it or not, but Brian's "one DB per spindle and one set of
object tables per MB", leads me to believe it may have been difficult to
achieve.

It will be interesting to see if the average compression ratio across a
statistically significant slice of users is greater than the average SIS
ratio... even if it does bite some people to lose SIS.

-sc

-Original Message-
From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:42 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

But in this case, we're not talking about a new product--we're talking
about a new version of an existing product. We already know how people
use it; many use it to store or distribute files.

In our case, we're not talking big files. I have a 10 MB limit. But even
relatively small files, when multiplied times 500 mailboxes, add up to a
lot of storage space if a deduplication mechanism isn't used.





-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:24 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

I agree in general.

But I can understand the opposite view - people write the product first
and release it. It then gets used in ways that are unintended. Now, in
Microsoft's case, there are commerical imperatives that stop them from
changing the product to suit actual usage. But on the other hand, there
are people who followed the release guidance and will get screwed if MS
changes the product. So it's some lose-lose catch 22 situation.

Cheers
Ken


From: John Hornbuckle [john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us]
Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 11:13 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

This says so much right here... It's a common trap IT people fall into.
We tell people that the way they want to use the technology isn't the
right way to use it.

Huh? Why not? Technology exists to serve humans--not vice versa.

I agree that e-mail is an efficient means of distributing and storing
files. But the fact is, that's how many people WANT to use e-mail. It's
how they use e-mail at home (encouraged by services like GMail, no
less). Why should we force them to change to adapt to the technology
rather than designing technology that adapts to them?



John Hornbuckle
MIS Department
Taylor County School District
318 North Clark Street
Perry, FL 32347

www.taylor.k12.fl.us







-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:09 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

They want to use email the way they want to.  And why are we telling
them they're wrong?

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[Steven M. Caesare]

I no longer have access to an exch console for a company, but when I was
it was always under 2, IIRC. That was ~1600 mailboxes.

 

A quick looksee at my home exchange server with 4 mailboxes has a SIS
ratio of 1.310.

 

 ;-)

 

-sc

 

 

 

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

 

Mine is about 1.7 for 500 users on EX2007

2009/5/29 David Mazzaccaro 

Mine is at 40.  (150 users, 1 E2003 store)
Never thought to look at this particular perfmon counter before this
post.
Id' be interested to see what others are reporting



-Original Message-
From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:30 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: RE: Amusing

I bet if you look at your SIS ratio perf counter you won't see anything
near a 10x reduction.


-sc

-Original Message-
From: John Hornbuckle 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:13 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Subject: RE: Amusing

I'll have to ponder that one a bit. Not sure I like it. Disks may be
cheap, but eliminating SIS would cause storage requirements to increase
by an order of magnitude. The OP's situation is a prime example...
Suddenly a 9 MB storage requirement becomes 2.7 GB storage requirement
(if my math is right).







From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:10 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing




3000x9



Disks are cheap, Exchange 2010 is designed to run RAID-less on large
SATA (e.g. 1TB) drives. 1 database per SATA drive - TX logs & DB on the
same volume.





Thanks,

Brian Desmond

br...@briandesmond.com




c - 312.731.3132



Active Directory, 4th Ed - http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/
<http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/>

Microsoft MVP - https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian
<https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian>



From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us]

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:57 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing




How does Ex 2010 work regarding SIS? If it doesn't use it, does it use
some similar technology? Or would the OP's 9 MB file now take 3000x9 MB
of space?







John Hornbuckle

MIS Department

Taylor County School District

318 North Clark Street

Perry, FL 32347



www.taylor.k12.fl.us













~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
<http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[Kelsey, John]

5.5 for 1600 mailboxes.

***
John C. Kelsey
DuBois Regional Medical Center
(:  814.375.3073  
*:   jckel...@drmc.org 
***


-Original Message-
From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 13:46
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing


2.1, for about 250 mailboxes.

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 06:36, James Rankin  wrote:
> Mine is about 1.7 for 500 users on EX2007
>
> 2009/5/29 David Mazzaccaro 
>>
>> Mine is at 40.  (150 users, 1 E2003 store)
>> Never thought to look at this particular perfmon counter before this 
>> post. Id' be interested to see what others are reporting
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:30 AM
>> To: NT System Admin Issues
>> Subject: RE: Amusing
>>
>> I bet if you look at your SIS ratio perf counter you won't see 
>> anything near a 10x reduction.
>>
>>
>> -sc
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: John Hornbuckle 
>> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:13 PM
>> To: NT System Admin Issues 
>> Subject: RE: Amusing
>>
>> I'll have to ponder that one a bit. Not sure I like it. Disks may be 
>> cheap, but eliminating SIS would cause storage requirements to 
>> increase by an order of magnitude. The OP's situation is a prime 
>> example... Suddenly a 9 MB storage requirement becomes 2.7 GB storage 
>> requirement (if my math is right).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:10 PM
>> To: NT System Admin Issues
>> Subject: RE: Amusing
>>
>>
>>
>> 3000x9
>>
>>
>>
>> Disks are cheap, Exchange 2010 is designed to run RAID-less on large 
>> SATA (e.g. 1TB) drives. 1 database per SATA drive - TX logs & DB on 
>> the same volume.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Brian Desmond
>>
>> br...@briandesmond.com
>>
>>
>>
>> c - 312.731.3132
>>
>>
>>
>> Active Directory, 4th Ed - http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/ 
>> <http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/>
>>
>> Microsoft MVP - https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian
>> <https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:57 PM
>> To: NT System Admin Issues
>> Subject: RE: Amusing
>>
>>
>>
>> How does Ex 2010 work regarding SIS? If it doesn't use it, does it 
>> use some similar technology? Or would the OP's 9 MB file now take 
>> 3000x9 MB of space?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John Hornbuckle
>>
>> MIS Department
>>
>> Taylor County School District
>>
>> 318 North Clark Street
>>
>> Perry, FL 32347
>>
>>
>>
>> www.taylor.k12.fl.us
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ 
>> <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>>
>>
>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ 
>> <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ 
<http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If 
you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This 
message contains confidential information and is intended only for the 
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not 
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

Re: Amusing

[Kurt Buff]

2.1, for about 250 mailboxes.

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 06:36, James Rankin  wrote:
> Mine is about 1.7 for 500 users on EX2007
>
> 2009/5/29 David Mazzaccaro 
>>
>> Mine is at 40.  (150 users, 1 E2003 store)
>> Never thought to look at this particular perfmon counter before this
>> post.
>> Id' be interested to see what others are reporting
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:30 AM
>> To: NT System Admin Issues
>> Subject: RE: Amusing
>>
>> I bet if you look at your SIS ratio perf counter you won't see anything
>> near a 10x reduction.
>>
>>
>> -sc
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: John Hornbuckle 
>> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:13 PM
>> To: NT System Admin Issues 
>> Subject: RE: Amusing
>>
>> I'll have to ponder that one a bit. Not sure I like it. Disks may be
>> cheap, but eliminating SIS would cause storage requirements to increase
>> by an order of magnitude. The OP's situation is a prime example...
>> Suddenly a 9 MB storage requirement becomes 2.7 GB storage requirement
>> (if my math is right).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:10 PM
>> To: NT System Admin Issues
>> Subject: RE: Amusing
>>
>>
>>
>> 3000x9
>>
>>
>>
>> Disks are cheap, Exchange 2010 is designed to run RAID-less on large
>> SATA (e.g. 1TB) drives. 1 database per SATA drive - TX logs & DB on the
>> same volume.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Brian Desmond
>>
>> br...@briandesmond.com
>>
>>
>>
>> c - 312.731.3132
>>
>>
>>
>> Active Directory, 4th Ed - http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/
>> <http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/>
>>
>> Microsoft MVP - https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian
>> <https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:57 PM
>> To: NT System Admin Issues
>> Subject: RE: Amusing
>>
>>
>>
>> How does Ex 2010 work regarding SIS? If it doesn't use it, does it use
>> some similar technology? Or would the OP's 9 MB file now take 3000x9 MB
>> of space?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John Hornbuckle
>>
>> MIS Department
>>
>> Taylor County School District
>>
>> 318 North Clark Street
>>
>> Perry, FL 32347
>>
>>
>>
>> www.taylor.k12.fl.us
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
>> <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>>
>>
>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
>> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

Re: Amusing

[Sean Martin]

SIS Ratio = 65 - 2400 mailboxes

- Sean

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Ben Scott  wrote:

> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Jim Mediger  wrote:
> > “Disk space savings from single instance storage are transient and drop
> off
> > very quickly over time.”
>
>  I believe that is misleading at best.  It may even be deliberate
> propaganda to justify removing SIS.  We've had several people post
> their SIS ratios in this thread, and only one has been anywhere close
> to a ratio of 1.  Several have been 5 or more, and one was 40!  While
> this isn't a scientific sample, it does suggest that SIS of real
> benefit for at least some people.
>
>  Again, I suspect Microsoft is viewing this problem from the
> standpoint of large, multi-server shops, where you have lots of
> servers and lots of databases.  In such cases, SIS can't help nearly
> as much.  But for the single-server shops, I suspect it's a different
> story entirely.
>
> -- Ben
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
>

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

Re: Amusing

[Jonathan Link]

Wouldn't it have been nice that MS had done product research and created a
traditional upgrade keeping SIS, and then released a "Datacenter Edition"
for large scales of server farms/user bases which didn't have SIS?

I wonder what percentage of revenue is the small to medium business market
compared to the large environment...

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Ben Scott  wrote:

> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Jim Mediger  wrote:
> > “Disk space savings from single instance storage are transient and drop
> off
> > very quickly over time.”
>
>  I believe that is misleading at best.  It may even be deliberate
> propaganda to justify removing SIS.  We've had several people post
> their SIS ratios in this thread, and only one has been anywhere close
> to a ratio of 1.  Several have been 5 or more, and one was 40!  While
> this isn't a scientific sample, it does suggest that SIS of real
> benefit for at least some people.
>
>  Again, I suspect Microsoft is viewing this problem from the
> standpoint of large, multi-server shops, where you have lots of
> servers and lots of databases.  In such cases, SIS can't help nearly
> as much.  But for the single-server shops, I suspect it's a different
> story entirely.
>
> -- Ben
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
>

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

Re: Amusing

[Ben Scott]

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Jim Mediger  wrote:
> “Disk space savings from single instance storage are transient and drop off
> very quickly over time.”

  I believe that is misleading at best.  It may even be deliberate
propaganda to justify removing SIS.  We've had several people post
their SIS ratios in this thread, and only one has been anywhere close
to a ratio of 1.  Several have been 5 or more, and one was 40!  While
this isn't a scientific sample, it does suggest that SIS of real
benefit for at least some people.

  Again, I suspect Microsoft is viewing this problem from the
standpoint of large, multi-server shops, where you have lots of
servers and lots of databases.  In such cases, SIS can't help nearly
as much.  But for the single-server shops, I suspect it's a different
story entirely.

-- Ben

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

Re: Amusing

[Ben Scott]

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Carl Houseman  wrote:
> As for memory/CPU, does eliminating SIS mean lower RAM or slower CPU
> requirements for the product?  Doubtful.

  Someone already explained that Exchange 2010 moves from a single set
of tables for all mailboxes, to a separate set of tables for each
mailbox.  This was apparently done to increase locality of reference.
With one giant table for all messages in all mailboxes, then when a
mailbox is opened, the IS has to jump all over the disk to find all
the messages that belong to that user.  Then again for attributes.
With Ex 2010, each mailbox has its own set of tables, and the IS takes
pain to keep those tables together on disk.  The result is that when a
mailbox is opened, most of the I/O is in one spot on the disk.  I can
definitely see this being a big win in performance, especially on
large systems with thousands of mailboxes and millions of messages.

  I presume that the attachments table was also allocated on a
per-mailbox basis.  With each mailbox keeping track of its own
attachments separately, SIS becomes much harder to do.  Before, there
was one giant table for every attachment in the system.  SIS was easy;
every message instance just referenced the same entry in the giant
attachment table.

  I do think that getting rid of SIS for attachments may be throwing
the baby out with the bathwater for many environments.  If some shops
are that desperate for the performance improvement of per-mailbox
attachment tables, make it an option for each storage group or
database, set upon creation.  If SIS is enabled, use one giant table
for attachments.  If SIS is disabled, use per-mailbox attachment
tables.

  Alas, seems that is not to be.

-- Ben

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

RE: Amusing

[Jim Mediger]

An older article referring to Exchange 2000 and older I'm assuming the material 
still holds true.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;198673

"There is a common misconception that the primary benefit of single instance 
storage is that it greatly reduces the storage space requirements for user data 
on a mail server."

"Disk space savings from single instance storage are transient and drop off 
very quickly over time."

A newer article:
http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2008/02/08/448095.aspx



From: Carl Houseman [mailto:c.house...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:25 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing


If I'm wrong, I welcome an informed source to say so and reveal the complete 
and unfiltered decision process for why a working feature with positive 
benefits to many was removed.  Not that that would ever happen of course, 
because an informed source would be prevented from airing anything with 
negative public relations consequences.  In short we'll never know the full 
story.



As for "don't buy the product if you don't like it", that kind of thinking on 
the part of a vendor results in fewer customers.



Probably they're thinking/hoping that those more impacted - small(er) 
businesses - will migrate to Exchange cloud services hosted by datacenters 
where the cost is reduced.  I'm still suspicious of the whole cloud thing as a 
new way of life, particularly when the connection to the cloud is lost or the 
cloud has an unexpected PEBKAC moment.  Remember Google going offline the other 
day?



http://www.pcworld.com/article/164946/google_outage_lesson_dont_get_stuck_in_a_cloud.html



Carl



-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:55 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing



"The thing they're eliminating is a

bunch of tricky code the programmers don't like and which needs a lot of

regression testing with each new release."



Do you have any actual information from informed sources on this? Or this just 
your backside driving?



Maybe the code is shared with RIS grovelling which got changed in Win2k8 to SIS 
service. Or maybe there are other challenges to getting it to work. Given 
Microsoft's bending over backwards to keep previous features there, I doubt 
it's just "we don't want a programmer to work on it" - there has got to be more 
to it IMHO. Whether that's analysis of scalability complaints (disk I/O perf in 
current versions of Exchange), analysis of where disk storage is going (disk 
space in the cheap category that has decent I/O - i.e. SATA 2/3 disks that kill 
old SCSI disks) or whatever.



I'd check out www.storagereview.com to see how current SATA2 disks kill older 
SCSI and even SAS disks perf wise. Whilst the argument might not be clear-cut 
right now, in 3/4/5 years time I think the situation will be clear given the 
current trends. You'll be able to buy a 10TB SATA4 disk that will provide 
better IOPS than a current SAS disk for far less cost, and sending a 3MB email 
will be a rounding error in your disk storage calculations.



But, as always, if you don't like it, don't buy the product. And Microsoft may 
change its mind.



Cheers

Ken



____

From: Carl Houseman [c.house...@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 11:44 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: RE: Amusing



As for memory/CPU, does eliminating SIS mean lower RAM or slower CPU

requirements for the product?  Doubtful.  The thing they're eliminating is a

bunch of tricky code the programmers don't like and which needs a lot of

regression testing with each new release.  You won't find anyone to admit

that, but it's more than likely a major factor in the decision, with a nod

from the bean counters who are already projecting savings from reduced

staffing.

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

~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~







~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[Carl Houseman]

If I'm wrong, I welcome an informed source to say so and reveal the complete
and unfiltered decision process for why a working feature with positive
benefits to many was removed.  Not that that would ever happen of course,
because an informed source would be prevented from airing anything with
negative public relations consequences.  In short we'll never know the full
story.

 

As for "don't buy the product if you don't like it", that kind of thinking
on the part of a vendor results in fewer customers.

 

Probably they're thinking/hoping that those more impacted - small(er)
businesses - will migrate to Exchange cloud services hosted by datacenters
where the cost is reduced.  I'm still suspicious of the whole cloud thing as
a new way of life, particularly when the connection to the cloud is lost or
the cloud has an unexpected PEBKAC moment.  Remember Google going offline
the other day?

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/164946/google_outage_lesson_dont_get_stuck_in
_a_cloud.html

 

Carl

 

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:55 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

"The thing they're eliminating is a

bunch of tricky code the programmers don't like and which needs a lot of

regression testing with each new release."

 

Do you have any actual information from informed sources on this? Or this
just your backside driving?

 

Maybe the code is shared with RIS grovelling which got changed in Win2k8 to
SIS service. Or maybe there are other challenges to getting it to work.
Given Microsoft's bending over backwards to keep previous features there, I
doubt it's just "we don't want a programmer to work on it" - there has got
to be more to it IMHO. Whether that's analysis of scalability complaints
(disk I/O perf in current versions of Exchange), analysis of where disk
storage is going (disk space in the cheap category that has decent I/O -
i.e. SATA 2/3 disks that kill old SCSI disks) or whatever. 

 

I'd check out www.storagereview.com to see how current SATA2 disks kill
older SCSI and even SAS disks perf wise. Whilst the argument might not be
clear-cut right now, in 3/4/5 years time I think the situation will be clear
given the current trends. You'll be able to buy a 10TB SATA4 disk that will
provide better IOPS than a current SAS disk for far less cost, and sending a
3MB email will be a rounding error in your disk storage calculations.

 

But, as always, if you don't like it, don't buy the product. And Microsoft
may change its mind.

 

Cheers

Ken

 



From: Carl Houseman [c.house...@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 11:44 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: RE: Amusing

 

As for memory/CPU, does eliminating SIS mean lower RAM or slower CPU

requirements for the product?  Doubtful.  The thing they're eliminating is a

bunch of tricky code the programmers don't like and which needs a lot of

regression testing with each new release.  You won't find anyone to admit

that, but it's more than likely a major factor in the decision, with a nod

from the bean counters who are already projecting savings from reduced

staffing.

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

~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

Re: Amusing

[Micheal Espinola Jr]

Of course.

--
ME2


On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:18 AM, paul chinnery  wrote:

>  So what is MS' reason for getting rid of SIS?  Perhaps another attempt to
> convince people to use Sharepoint?
>

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

RE: Amusing

[John Hornbuckle]

Who says what's "right," though? That brings us back to trying to force humans 
to adapt to technology rather than designing technology for the way users work.

I used to fall more into the camp of believing that users needed to adjust 
their ways to fit the technology. But as I've worked on my Master's in MIS over 
the past year, I've done a lot of reading about human-computer interaction, 
human behavior, employee motivation, and related fields. My views have really 
shifted quite a bit.



John


From: Jon Harris [mailto:jk.har...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:58 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

I agree with several others that said just because you can don't make it right. 
 I have one user whinning that wants to store EVERYTHING in his Exchange 
mailbox.  His box is 1 GB at the moment and he has been hinting that he might 
like to have more.  I only get lucky in that we don't control our email service 
some one else does and they have a hard and fast rule that 1 GB is the max and 
most will only get 50 MB total.  Our users for the most part are use to using 
PST's to store their stuff and understand the (old) rule of 4 GB max in the 
PST.  They know that when they blow the limit I don't fix the PST I delete it.  
(I actually just remove the file from the system and store it unless it is 
urgent.)  One blown PST per year reminds them use the server for exchanging 
files not email.  In some ways us being behind for so long is a blessing.  They 
use to have open shares on every desktop and laptop until they lost several 
weeks worth of work when the user "owning" the file turned off the machine with 
other users using files on the machine.  That got us our first real server.  
Now they would not even think to ask for open shares on their machines.

My being an a$$ helps a lot as well.  I love to say "I told you so" with a big 
smile on my face.

Jon



On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Carl Houseman 
mailto:c.house...@gmail.com>> wrote:
9GB SCSI disks?  I hope they're still stuck on Exchange 2000 as well...
Swapping out 73GB or 150GB SCSI disks hopefully!

As for memory/CPU, does eliminating SIS mean lower RAM or slower CPU
requirements for the product?  Doubtful.  The thing they're eliminating is a
bunch of tricky code the programmers don't like and which needs a lot of
regression testing with each new release.  You won't find anyone to admit
that, but it's more than likely a major factor in the decision, with a nod
from the bean counters who are already projecting savings from reduced
staffing.

Carl

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com<mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com>]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:28 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing
The harm might be increased CPU or memory usage, reduced scalability etc.

Whilst you can quantify some direct benefits (more disks), I assume that
most people will be swapping 9GB SCSI disks for new 1TB SATA2 disks that
probably consume a bunch less power. Additionally the increased productivity
if features are deployed correctly will, IMHO, save a bunch of energy.

People are point the finger at data center power and cooling requirements,
but look at how IT has transformed business - everything from online banking
to systems that more effeciently route FedEd/DHL drivers to save time and
energy.

We really don't have enough information. I suspect that this is based on
analysis of what's cost effective given real world data and complaints about
the limitations of Exchange. We've had the same complaints about UAC or
Office 2007 ribbon UI, 16->32->64bit computing. But with a bit of subsequent
tweaking, I'm sure we'll not want to go back to what we had before.

Cheers
Ken


From: Carl Houseman [c.house...@gmail.com<mailto:c.house...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 11:16 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing
I have to agree.  What's the harm in leaving in a feature that is working
perfectly well?   We see this all the time, working features removed from
upgraded products.  They tried to do the same with PF's and we pushed back,
and hopefully PF's will continue for the forseeable future.  I guess it's
too late to reverse the decision on SIS, but MS needs to understand that
pulling features has consequences.

Not to mention, just because running more cheap SATA drives is an
alternative to SIS, doesn't make it a good idea.  Running more drives means
higher power consumption, more rack/floor space.  Did MS miss the "green"
bus here?  There's public relations gold in being able to advertise green.

Carl
-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com<mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:03 AM
To: NT Syste

RE: Amusing

[Ralph Smith]

14.5 for 200 users.

 



From: Rob Bonfiglio [mailto:robbonfig...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:02 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

 

5.25 for roughly 350 users.

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:33 AM, David Mazzaccaro
 wrote:

Mine is at 40.  (150 users, 1 E2003 store)
Never thought to look at this particular perfmon counter before this
post.
Id' be interested to see what others are reporting



-Original Message-
From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:30 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: RE: Amusing

I bet if you look at your SIS ratio perf counter you won't see anything
near a 10x reduction.


-sc

-Original Message-
From: John Hornbuckle 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:13 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Subject: RE: Amusing

I'll have to ponder that one a bit. Not sure I like it. Disks may be
cheap, but eliminating SIS would cause storage requirements to increase
by an order of magnitude. The OP's situation is a prime example...
Suddenly a 9 MB storage requirement becomes 2.7 GB storage requirement
(if my math is right).







From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:10 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing




3000x9



Disks are cheap, Exchange 2010 is designed to run RAID-less on large
SATA (e.g. 1TB) drives. 1 database per SATA drive - TX logs & DB on the
same volume.





Thanks,

Brian Desmond

br...@briandesmond.com




c - 312.731.3132



Active Directory, 4th Ed - http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/
<http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/>

Microsoft MVP - https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian
<https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian>



From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us]

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:57 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing




How does Ex 2010 work regarding SIS? If it doesn't use it, does it use
some similar technology? Or would the OP's 9 MB file now take 3000x9 MB
of space?







John Hornbuckle

MIS Department

Taylor County School District

318 North Clark Street

Perry, FL 32347



www.taylor.k12.fl.us <http://www.taylor.k12.fl.us/> 













~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
<http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

 

 

 

Confidentiality Notice: 

--



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

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

Re: Amusing

[Rob Bonfiglio]

5.25 for roughly 350 users.

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:33 AM, David Mazzaccaro <
david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com> wrote:

> Mine is at 40.  (150 users, 1 E2003 store)
> Never thought to look at this particular perfmon counter before this
> post.
> Id' be interested to see what others are reporting
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:30 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Amusing
>
> I bet if you look at your SIS ratio perf counter you won't see anything
> near a 10x reduction.
>
>
> -sc
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Hornbuckle 
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:13 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues 
> Subject: RE: Amusing
>
> I'll have to ponder that one a bit. Not sure I like it. Disks may be
> cheap, but eliminating SIS would cause storage requirements to increase
> by an order of magnitude. The OP's situation is a prime example...
> Suddenly a 9 MB storage requirement becomes 2.7 GB storage requirement
> (if my math is right).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:10 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Amusing
>
>
>
> 3000x9
>
>
>
> Disks are cheap, Exchange 2010 is designed to run RAID-less on large
> SATA (e.g. 1TB) drives. 1 database per SATA drive - TX logs & DB on the
> same volume.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian Desmond
>
> br...@briandesmond.com
>
>
>
> c - 312.731.3132
>
>
>
> Active Directory, 4th Ed - http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/
> <http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/>
>
> Microsoft MVP - https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian
> <https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian>
>
>
>
> From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us]
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:57 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Amusing
>
>
>
> How does Ex 2010 work regarding SIS? If it doesn't use it, does it use
> some similar technology? Or would the OP's 9 MB file now take 3000x9 MB
> of space?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Hornbuckle
>
> MIS Department
>
> Taylor County School District
>
> 318 North Clark Street
>
> Perry, FL 32347
>
>
>
> www.taylor.k12.fl.us
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
> <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

Re: Amusing

[Jon Harris]

I agree with several others that said just because you can don't make it
right.  I have one user whinning that wants to store EVERYTHING in his
Exchange mailbox.  His box is 1 GB at the moment and he has been hinting
that he might like to have more.  I only get lucky in that we don't control
our email service some one else does and they have a hard and fast rule that
1 GB is the max and most will only get 50 MB total.  Our users for the most
part are use to using PST's to store their stuff and understand the (old)
rule of 4 GB max in the PST.  They know that when they blow the limit I
don't fix the PST I delete it.  (I actually just remove the file from the
system and store it unless it is urgent.)  One blown PST per year reminds
them use the server for exchanging files not email.  In some ways us being
behind for so long is a blessing.  They use to have open shares on every
desktop and laptop until they lost several weeks worth of work when the user
"owning" the file turned off the machine with other users using files on the
machine.  That got us our first real server.  Now they would not even think
to ask for open shares on their machines.

My being an a$$ helps a lot as well.  I love to say "I told you so" with a
big smile on my face.

Jon



On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Carl Houseman  wrote:

> 9GB SCSI disks?  I hope they're still stuck on Exchange 2000 as well...
> Swapping out 73GB or 150GB SCSI disks hopefully!
>
> As for memory/CPU, does eliminating SIS mean lower RAM or slower CPU
> requirements for the product?  Doubtful.  The thing they're eliminating is
> a
> bunch of tricky code the programmers don't like and which needs a lot of
> regression testing with each new release.  You won't find anyone to admit
> that, but it's more than likely a major factor in the decision, with a nod
> from the bean counters who are already projecting savings from reduced
> staffing.
>
> Carl
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:28 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Amusing
>
> The harm might be increased CPU or memory usage, reduced scalability etc.
>
> Whilst you can quantify some direct benefits (more disks), I assume that
> most people will be swapping 9GB SCSI disks for new 1TB SATA2 disks that
> probably consume a bunch less power. Additionally the increased
> productivity
> if features are deployed correctly will, IMHO, save a bunch of energy.
>
> People are point the finger at data center power and cooling requirements,
> but look at how IT has transformed business - everything from online
> banking
> to systems that more effeciently route FedEd/DHL drivers to save time and
> energy.
>
> We really don't have enough information. I suspect that this is based on
> analysis of what's cost effective given real world data and complaints
> about
> the limitations of Exchange. We've had the same complaints about UAC or
> Office 2007 ribbon UI, 16->32->64bit computing. But with a bit of
> subsequent
> tweaking, I'm sure we'll not want to go back to what we had before.
>
> Cheers
> Ken
>
> 
> From: Carl Houseman [c.house...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 11:16 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Amusing
>
> I have to agree.  What's the harm in leaving in a feature that is working
> perfectly well?   We see this all the time, working features removed from
> upgraded products.  They tried to do the same with PF's and we pushed back,
> and hopefully PF's will continue for the forseeable future.  I guess it's
> too late to reverse the decision on SIS, but MS needs to understand that
> pulling features has consequences.
>
> Not to mention, just because running more cheap SATA drives is an
> alternative to SIS, doesn't make it a good idea.  Running more drives means
> higher power consumption, more rack/floor space.  Did MS miss the "green"
> bus here?  There's public relations gold in being able to advertise green.
>
> Carl
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:03 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: Amusing
>
>  On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Brian Desmond 
> wrote:
> > OK so before we go down the Exchange 2010 sucks because I think I
> > need single instance [attachment] storage route, let's look at some
> > other new stuff:
>
>  I'm not saying Exchange 2010 doesn't bring anything to the table.
> It has a lot of really interesting features.  For us, I know, the
> archiving capabilities a

RE: Amusing

[Ken Schaefer]

"The thing they're eliminating is a
bunch of tricky code the programmers don't like and which needs a lot of
regression testing with each new release."

Do you have any actual information from informed sources on this? Or this just 
your backside driving?

Maybe the code is shared with RIS grovelling which got changed in Win2k8 to SIS 
service. Or maybe there are other challenges to getting it to work. Given 
Microsoft's bending over backwards to keep previous features there, I doubt 
it's just "we don't want a programmer to work on it" - there has got to be more 
to it IMHO. Whether that's analysis of scalability complaints (disk I/O perf in 
current versions of Exchange), analysis of where disk storage is going (disk 
space in the cheap category that has decent I/O - i.e. SATA 2/3 disks that kill 
old SCSI disks) or whatever. 

I'd check out www.storagereview.com to see how current SATA2 disks kill older 
SCSI and even SAS disks perf wise. Whilst the argument might not be clear-cut 
right now, in 3/4/5 years time I think the situation will be clear given the 
current trends. You'll be able to buy a 10TB SATA4 disk that will provide 
better IOPS than a current SAS disk for far less cost, and sending a 3MB email 
will be a rounding error in your disk storage calculations.

But, as always, if you don't like it, don't buy the product. And Microsoft may 
change its mind.

Cheers
Ken


From: Carl Houseman [c.house...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 11:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

As for memory/CPU, does eliminating SIS mean lower RAM or slower CPU
requirements for the product?  Doubtful.  The thing they're eliminating is a
bunch of tricky code the programmers don't like and which needs a lot of
regression testing with each new release.  You won't find anyone to admit
that, but it's more than likely a major factor in the decision, with a nod
from the bean counters who are already projecting savings from reduced
staffing.
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

Re: Amusing

[Jonathan Link]

+1

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Carl Houseman  wrote:

> 9GB SCSI disks?  I hope they're still stuck on Exchange 2000 as well...
> Swapping out 73GB or 150GB SCSI disks hopefully!
>
> As for memory/CPU, does eliminating SIS mean lower RAM or slower CPU
> requirements for the product?  Doubtful.  The thing they're eliminating is
> a
> bunch of tricky code the programmers don't like and which needs a lot of
> regression testing with each new release.  You won't find anyone to admit
> that, but it's more than likely a major factor in the decision, with a nod
> from the bean counters who are already projecting savings from reduced
> staffing.
>
> Carl
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:28 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Amusing
>
> The harm might be increased CPU or memory usage, reduced scalability etc.
>
> Whilst you can quantify some direct benefits (more disks), I assume that
> most people will be swapping 9GB SCSI disks for new 1TB SATA2 disks that
> probably consume a bunch less power. Additionally the increased
> productivity
> if features are deployed correctly will, IMHO, save a bunch of energy.
>
> People are point the finger at data center power and cooling requirements,
> but look at how IT has transformed business - everything from online
> banking
> to systems that more effeciently route FedEd/DHL drivers to save time and
> energy.
>
> We really don't have enough information. I suspect that this is based on
> analysis of what's cost effective given real world data and complaints
> about
> the limitations of Exchange. We've had the same complaints about UAC or
> Office 2007 ribbon UI, 16->32->64bit computing. But with a bit of
> subsequent
> tweaking, I'm sure we'll not want to go back to what we had before.
>
> Cheers
> Ken
>
> 
> From: Carl Houseman [c.house...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 11:16 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Amusing
>
> I have to agree.  What's the harm in leaving in a feature that is working
> perfectly well?   We see this all the time, working features removed from
> upgraded products.  They tried to do the same with PF's and we pushed back,
> and hopefully PF's will continue for the forseeable future.  I guess it's
> too late to reverse the decision on SIS, but MS needs to understand that
> pulling features has consequences.
>
> Not to mention, just because running more cheap SATA drives is an
> alternative to SIS, doesn't make it a good idea.  Running more drives means
> higher power consumption, more rack/floor space.  Did MS miss the "green"
> bus here?  There's public relations gold in being able to advertise green.
>
> Carl
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:03 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: Amusing
>
>  On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Brian Desmond 
> wrote:
> > OK so before we go down the Exchange 2010 sucks because I think I
> > need single instance [attachment] storage route, let's look at some
> > other new stuff:
>
>  I'm not saying Exchange 2010 doesn't bring anything to the table.
> It has a lot of really interesting features.  For us, I know, the
> archiving capabilities are *really* interesting.
>
>  But here's the thing: If someone has a product that has features
> that one uses today, and the next release of the product takes away
> those features, that's a step backwards.  It doesn't matter that the
> new release is faster/lower/longer/wider, if it doesn't deliver what
> we're depending on today.
>
>  Since we're using bad analogies: Look at your car.  Say next year's
> model has a better radio, GPS navigation, power seats, and a built-in
> hibachi grill.  But it gets 1/2 as many miles to the gallon.  What do
> you care more about?
>
>  (Again, scalability upward doesn't matter to us small shops.  We
> don't care if you can run 3000 users per server where you could only
> run 1000 before.  We only have 70 users; other small shops will have
> fewer, or a few hundred, tops.)
> />  ~
>  ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[Carl Houseman]

9GB SCSI disks?  I hope they're still stuck on Exchange 2000 as well...
Swapping out 73GB or 150GB SCSI disks hopefully!

As for memory/CPU, does eliminating SIS mean lower RAM or slower CPU
requirements for the product?  Doubtful.  The thing they're eliminating is a
bunch of tricky code the programmers don't like and which needs a lot of
regression testing with each new release.  You won't find anyone to admit
that, but it's more than likely a major factor in the decision, with a nod
from the bean counters who are already projecting savings from reduced
staffing.

Carl

-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:28 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

The harm might be increased CPU or memory usage, reduced scalability etc.

Whilst you can quantify some direct benefits (more disks), I assume that
most people will be swapping 9GB SCSI disks for new 1TB SATA2 disks that
probably consume a bunch less power. Additionally the increased productivity
if features are deployed correctly will, IMHO, save a bunch of energy.

People are point the finger at data center power and cooling requirements,
but look at how IT has transformed business - everything from online banking
to systems that more effeciently route FedEd/DHL drivers to save time and
energy.

We really don't have enough information. I suspect that this is based on
analysis of what's cost effective given real world data and complaints about
the limitations of Exchange. We've had the same complaints about UAC or
Office 2007 ribbon UI, 16->32->64bit computing. But with a bit of subsequent
tweaking, I'm sure we'll not want to go back to what we had before.

Cheers
Ken


From: Carl Houseman [c.house...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 11:16 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

I have to agree.  What's the harm in leaving in a feature that is working
perfectly well?   We see this all the time, working features removed from
upgraded products.  They tried to do the same with PF's and we pushed back,
and hopefully PF's will continue for the forseeable future.  I guess it's
too late to reverse the decision on SIS, but MS needs to understand that
pulling features has consequences.

Not to mention, just because running more cheap SATA drives is an
alternative to SIS, doesn't make it a good idea.  Running more drives means
higher power consumption, more rack/floor space.  Did MS miss the "green"
bus here?  There's public relations gold in being able to advertise green.

Carl

-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:03 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Brian Desmond 
wrote:
> OK so before we go down the Exchange 2010 sucks because I think I
> need single instance [attachment] storage route, let's look at some
> other new stuff:

  I'm not saying Exchange 2010 doesn't bring anything to the table.
It has a lot of really interesting features.  For us, I know, the
archiving capabilities are *really* interesting.

  But here's the thing: If someone has a product that has features
that one uses today, and the next release of the product takes away
those features, that's a step backwards.  It doesn't matter that the
new release is faster/lower/longer/wider, if it doesn't deliver what
we're depending on today.

  Since we're using bad analogies: Look at your car.  Say next year's
model has a better radio, GPS navigation, power seats, and a built-in
hibachi grill.  But it gets 1/2 as many miles to the gallon.  What do
you care more about?

  (Again, scalability upward doesn't matter to us small shops.  We
don't care if you can run 3000 users per server where you could only
run 1000 before.  We only have 70 users; other small shops will have
fewer, or a few hundred, tops.)
/>  ~
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[John Hornbuckle]

But in this case, we're not talking about a new product--we're talking about a 
new version of an existing product. We already know how people use it; many use 
it to store or distribute files.

In our case, we're not talking big files. I have a 10 MB limit. But even 
relatively small files, when multiplied times 500 mailboxes, add up to a lot of 
storage space if a deduplication mechanism isn't used.





-Original Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:24 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

I agree in general.

But I can understand the opposite view - people write the product first and 
release it. It then gets used in ways that are unintended. Now, in Microsoft's 
case, there are commerical imperatives that stop them from changing the product 
to suit actual usage. But on the other hand, there are people who followed the 
release guidance and will get screwed if MS changes the product. So it's some 
lose-lose catch 22 situation.

Cheers
Ken


From: John Hornbuckle [john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us]
Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 11:13 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

This says so much right here... It's a common trap IT people fall into. We tell 
people that the way they want to use the technology isn't the right way to use 
it.

Huh? Why not? Technology exists to serve humans--not vice versa.

I agree that e-mail is an efficient means of distributing and storing files. 
But the fact is, that's how many people WANT to use e-mail. It's how they use 
e-mail at home (encouraged by services like GMail, no less). Why should we 
force them to change to adapt to the technology rather than designing 
technology that adapts to them?



John Hornbuckle
MIS Department
Taylor County School District
318 North Clark Street
Perry, FL 32347

www.taylor.k12.fl.us







-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:09 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

They want to use email the way they want to.  And why are we telling them 
they're wrong?

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

Re: Amusing

[James Rankin]

Mine is about 1.7 for 500 users on EX2007

2009/5/29 David Mazzaccaro 

> Mine is at 40.  (150 users, 1 E2003 store)
> Never thought to look at this particular perfmon counter before this
> post.
> Id' be interested to see what others are reporting
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:30 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Amusing
>
> I bet if you look at your SIS ratio perf counter you won't see anything
> near a 10x reduction.
>
>
> -sc
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Hornbuckle 
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:13 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues 
> Subject: RE: Amusing
>
> I'll have to ponder that one a bit. Not sure I like it. Disks may be
> cheap, but eliminating SIS would cause storage requirements to increase
> by an order of magnitude. The OP's situation is a prime example...
> Suddenly a 9 MB storage requirement becomes 2.7 GB storage requirement
> (if my math is right).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:10 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Amusing
>
>
>
> 3000x9
>
>
>
> Disks are cheap, Exchange 2010 is designed to run RAID-less on large
> SATA (e.g. 1TB) drives. 1 database per SATA drive - TX logs & DB on the
> same volume.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian Desmond
>
> br...@briandesmond.com
>
>
>
> c - 312.731.3132
>
>
>
> Active Directory, 4th Ed - http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/
> <http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/>
>
> Microsoft MVP - https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian
> <https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian>
>
>
>
> From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us]
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:57 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Amusing
>
>
>
> How does Ex 2010 work regarding SIS? If it doesn't use it, does it use
> some similar technology? Or would the OP's 9 MB file now take 3000x9 MB
> of space?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Hornbuckle
>
> MIS Department
>
> Taylor County School District
>
> 318 North Clark Street
>
> Perry, FL 32347
>
>
>
> www.taylor.k12.fl.us
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
> <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[David Mazzaccaro]

Mine is at 40.  (150 users, 1 E2003 store)
Never thought to look at this particular perfmon counter before this
post.
Id' be interested to see what others are reporting
 

-Original Message-
From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:30 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

I bet if you look at your SIS ratio perf counter you won't see anything
near a 10x reduction.


-sc

-Original Message-
From: John Hornbuckle 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:13 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Subject: RE: Amusing

I'll have to ponder that one a bit. Not sure I like it. Disks may be
cheap, but eliminating SIS would cause storage requirements to increase
by an order of magnitude. The OP's situation is a prime example...
Suddenly a 9 MB storage requirement becomes 2.7 GB storage requirement
(if my math is right).

 

 

 

From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:10 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

3000x9

 

Disks are cheap, Exchange 2010 is designed to run RAID-less on large
SATA (e.g. 1TB) drives. 1 database per SATA drive - TX logs & DB on the
same volume. 

 

 

Thanks,

Brian Desmond

br...@briandesmond.com

 

c - 312.731.3132

 

Active Directory, 4th Ed - http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/
<http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/> 

Microsoft MVP - https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian
<https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian> 

 

From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

How does Ex 2010 work regarding SIS? If it doesn't use it, does it use
some similar technology? Or would the OP's 9 MB file now take 3000x9 MB
of space?

 

 

 

John Hornbuckle

MIS Department

Taylor County School District

318 North Clark Street

Perry, FL 32347

 

www.taylor.k12.fl.us

 

 

 

 

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
<http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[Ken Schaefer]

The harm might be increased CPU or memory usage, reduced scalability etc.

Whilst you can quantify some direct benefits (more disks), I assume that most 
people will be swapping 9GB SCSI disks for new 1TB SATA2 disks that probably 
consume a bunch less power. Additionally the increased productivity if features 
are deployed correctly will, IMHO, save a bunch of energy.

People are point the finger at data center power and cooling requirements, but 
look at how IT has transformed business - everything from online banking to 
systems that more effeciently route FedEd/DHL drivers to save time and energy.

We really don't have enough information. I suspect that this is based on 
analysis of what's cost effective given real world data and complaints about 
the limitations of Exchange. We've had the same complaints about UAC or Office 
2007 ribbon UI, 16->32->64bit computing. But with a bit of subsequent tweaking, 
I'm sure we'll not want to go back to what we had before.

Cheers
Ken


From: Carl Houseman [c.house...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 11:16 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

I have to agree.  What's the harm in leaving in a feature that is working
perfectly well?   We see this all the time, working features removed from
upgraded products.  They tried to do the same with PF's and we pushed back,
and hopefully PF's will continue for the forseeable future.  I guess it's
too late to reverse the decision on SIS, but MS needs to understand that
pulling features has consequences.

Not to mention, just because running more cheap SATA drives is an
alternative to SIS, doesn't make it a good idea.  Running more drives means
higher power consumption, more rack/floor space.  Did MS miss the "green"
bus here?  There's public relations gold in being able to advertise green.

Carl

-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:03 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Brian Desmond 
wrote:
> OK so before we go down the Exchange 2010 sucks because I think I
> need single instance [attachment] storage route, let's look at some
> other new stuff:

  I'm not saying Exchange 2010 doesn't bring anything to the table.
It has a lot of really interesting features.  For us, I know, the
archiving capabilities are *really* interesting.

  But here's the thing: If someone has a product that has features
that one uses today, and the next release of the product takes away
those features, that's a step backwards.  It doesn't matter that the
new release is faster/lower/longer/wider, if it doesn't deliver what
we're depending on today.

  Since we're using bad analogies: Look at your car.  Say next year's
model has a better radio, GPS navigation, power seats, and a built-in
hibachi grill.  But it gets 1/2 as many miles to the gallon.  What do
you care more about?

  (Again, scalability upward doesn't matter to us small shops.  We
don't care if you can run 3000 users per server where you could only
run 1000 before.  We only have 70 users; other small shops will have
fewer, or a few hundred, tops.)
/>  ~
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[Steven M. Caesare]

I bet if you look at your SIS ratio perf counter you won't see anything near a 
10x reduction.


-sc

-Original Message-
From: John Hornbuckle 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:13 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Subject: RE: Amusing

I’ll have to ponder that one a bit. Not sure I like it. Disks may be cheap, but 
eliminating SIS would cause storage requirements to increase by an order of 
magnitude. The OP’s situation is a prime example… Suddenly a 9 MB storage 
requirement becomes 2.7 GB storage requirement (if my math is right).

 

 

 

From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:10 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

3000x9

 

Disks are cheap, Exchange 2010 is designed to run RAID-less on large SATA (e.g. 
1TB) drives. 1 database per SATA drive – TX logs & DB on the same volume. 

 

 

Thanks,

Brian Desmond

br...@briandesmond.com

 

c - 312.731.3132

 

Active Directory, 4th Ed - http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/ 
<http://www.briandesmond.com/ad4/> 

Microsoft MVP - https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian 
<https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Brian> 

 

From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

 

How does Ex 2010 work regarding SIS? If it doesn’t use it, does it use some 
similar technology? Or would the OP’s 9 MB file now take 3000x9 MB of space?

 

 

 

John Hornbuckle

MIS Department

Taylor County School District

318 North Clark Street

Perry, FL 32347

 

www.taylor.k12.fl.us

 

 

 

 

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[Ken Schaefer]

I agree in general.

But I can understand the opposite view - people write the product first and 
release it. It then gets used in ways that are unintended. Now, in Microsoft's 
case, there are commerical imperatives that stop them from changing the product 
to suit actual usage. But on the other hand, there are people who followed the 
release guidance and will get screwed if MS changes the product. So it's some 
lose-lose catch 22 situation.

Cheers
Ken


From: John Hornbuckle [john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us]
Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 11:13 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Amusing

This says so much right here... It's a common trap IT people fall into. We tell 
people that the way they want to use the technology isn't the right way to use 
it.

Huh? Why not? Technology exists to serve humans--not vice versa.

I agree that e-mail is an efficient means of distributing and storing files. 
But the fact is, that's how many people WANT to use e-mail. It's how they use 
e-mail at home (encouraged by services like GMail, no less). Why should we 
force them to change to adapt to the technology rather than designing 
technology that adapts to them?



John Hornbuckle
MIS Department
Taylor County School District
318 North Clark Street
Perry, FL 32347

www.taylor.k12.fl.us







-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:09 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

They want to use email the way they want to.  And why are we telling them 
they're wrong?

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[Ken Schaefer]

Obviously your humour detector is broken (there was a smiley). I have a new 
name for Sharepoint 2007 - Sharepain 2007, given the number of hours I have 
burnt over the past two months working on a MOSS migration project for a large 
customer.

Storage and transmission of large files is still an issue that we are yet to 
solve yet unfortunately. At least as far as the earlier post went (internal 
sending of 3MB pictures or whatever), maybe 2010 will help with an offline 
client for Sharepoint. Maybe in the next phase this can be built into Outlook - 
send an email over a certain size, the attachment gets stored "in 
Sharepoint/Exchange/central file system/whatever" and the metadata 
(read/unread/altered/whatever) is stored in Exchange DB.

Cheers
Ken


From: Ben Scott [mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 11:08 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Ken Schaefer  wrote:
> Deploy Sharepoint, and email links instead. :-)

  SharePoint may well be the most overrated product in the history of
Microsoft.  I can tell people to email links to files on the file
server just as easily.  The problem is, people see it as inconvenient.
 They want to use email the way they want to.  And why are we telling
them they're wrong?

  Plus, much of the mail traffic is external, and our customers love
to email us large engineering drawings.

  Let me guess: Deploy another Windows server, running SharePoint, in
a DMZ, and use that as a file transfer point.  So now I have to not
only educate our users, I have to buy more hardware, more software,
and educate all of our customers.  Many of whom are hugely larger than
us and don't take instruction well.

  How is this an improvement for us?  I can see why Microsoft likes it
-- it sells more licenses.  Not so good for us.

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[Carl Houseman]

I have to agree.  What's the harm in leaving in a feature that is working
perfectly well?   We see this all the time, working features removed from
upgraded products.  They tried to do the same with PF's and we pushed back,
and hopefully PF's will continue for the forseeable future.  I guess it's
too late to reverse the decision on SIS, but MS needs to understand that
pulling features has consequences.

Not to mention, just because running more cheap SATA drives is an
alternative to SIS, doesn't make it a good idea.  Running more drives means
higher power consumption, more rack/floor space.  Did MS miss the "green"
bus here?  There's public relations gold in being able to advertise green.

Carl

-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:03 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Brian Desmond 
wrote:
> OK so before we go down the Exchange 2010 sucks because I think I
> need single instance [attachment] storage route, let's look at some
> other new stuff:

  I'm not saying Exchange 2010 doesn't bring anything to the table.
It has a lot of really interesting features.  For us, I know, the
archiving capabilities are *really* interesting.

  But here's the thing: If someone has a product that has features
that one uses today, and the next release of the product takes away
those features, that's a step backwards.  It doesn't matter that the
new release is faster/lower/longer/wider, if it doesn't deliver what
we're depending on today.

  Since we're using bad analogies: Look at your car.  Say next year's
model has a better radio, GPS navigation, power seats, and a built-in
hibachi grill.  But it gets 1/2 as many miles to the gallon.  What do
you care more about?

  (Again, scalability upward doesn't matter to us small shops.  We
don't care if you can run 3000 users per server where you could only
run 1000 before.  We only have 70 users; other small shops will have
fewer, or a few hundred, tops.)

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Amusing

[John Hornbuckle]

This says so much right here... It's a common trap IT people fall into. We tell 
people that the way they want to use the technology isn't the right way to use 
it.

Huh? Why not? Technology exists to serve humans--not vice versa.

I agree that e-mail is an efficient means of distributing and storing files. 
But the fact is, that's how many people WANT to use e-mail. It's how they use 
e-mail at home (encouraged by services like GMail, no less). Why should we 
force them to change to adapt to the technology rather than designing 
technology that adapts to them?



John Hornbuckle
MIS Department
Taylor County School District
318 North Clark Street
Perry, FL 32347

www.taylor.k12.fl.us







-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:09 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Amusing

They want to use email the way they want to.  And why are we telling them 
they're wrong?

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

Re: Amusing

[Ben Scott]

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Ken Schaefer  wrote:
> Deploy Sharepoint, and email links instead. :-)

  SharePoint may well be the most overrated product in the history of
Microsoft.  I can tell people to email links to files on the file
server just as easily.  The problem is, people see it as inconvenient.
 They want to use email the way they want to.  And why are we telling
them they're wrong?

  Plus, much of the mail traffic is external, and our customers love
to email us large engineering drawings.

  Let me guess: Deploy another Windows server, running SharePoint, in
a DMZ, and use that as a file transfer point.  So now I have to not
only educate our users, I have to buy more hardware, more software,
and educate all of our customers.  Many of whom are hugely larger than
us and don't take instruction well.

  How is this an improvement for us?  I can see why Microsoft likes it
-- it sells more licenses.  Not so good for us.

-- Ben

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

Re: Amusing

[Ben Scott]

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Brian Desmond  wrote:
> OK so before we go down the Exchange 2010 sucks because I think I
> need single instance [attachment] storage route, let's look at some
> other new stuff:

  I'm not saying Exchange 2010 doesn't bring anything to the table.
It has a lot of really interesting features.  For us, I know, the
archiving capabilities are *really* interesting.

  But here's the thing: If someone has a product that has features
that one uses today, and the next release of the product takes away
those features, that's a step backwards.  It doesn't matter that the
new release is faster/lower/longer/wider, if it doesn't deliver what
we're depending on today.

  Since we're using bad analogies: Look at your car.  Say next year's
model has a better radio, GPS navigation, power seats, and a built-in
hibachi grill.  But it gets 1/2 as many miles to the gallon.  What do
you care more about?

  (Again, scalability upward doesn't matter to us small shops.  We
don't care if you can run 3000 users per server where you could only
run 1000 before.  We only have 70 users; other small shops will have
fewer, or a few hundred, tops.)

-- Ben

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