Q270677
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Alex Alborzfard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:32 AM
Posted To: exchange
Conversation: Event Service won't start
Subject: Event Service won't start
EX 5.5, NT4 SP6a
Event service won't start and displays the
This brings up the old philosophical question about how much disk space
do you allow any one user. 100mb, 1gb, 10gb, 100gb??
I work at a place where folks work 20, 30, 40 years. Some of these folks
would keep every shred of email forever if there was not some upper
limit on their space. We try to
Yesterday morning the Unix box our Exchange system hands off
Internet-bound email to was having a problem, as initially evidenced on
the Exchange side by the filling up of remote SMTP queues. As part of
the troubleshooting process I restarted the SMTP virtual server. When I
did this it flushed all
Guess I should have mentioned that this is an Exchange 2000 sp3 system.
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Martin, Jon
Posted At: Monday, January 12, 2004 8:35 AM
Posted To: exchange
Conversation: Incorrect NDRs Miss-Addressed Email Queues
Subject: Incorrect NDRs Miss-Addressed Email Queues
.
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Martin, Jon
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 5:20 PM
Posted To: exchange - new
Conversation: OWA and URLScan-Blocked Special Characters
Subject:OWA and URLScan-Blocked Special Characters
OK, we all know that when you run Urlscan
OK, we all know that when you run Urlscan on an Exchange server that you will not be
able to view certain notes in OWA, specifically those notes with special characters in
the subject line. The special characters are below, along with the reason, according
to MS documentation, that these should
Never personally tried it over dial-up, although we have a few users doing that and
I've heard no complaints (then again, I am not on the Help Desk). It works fine
(Outlook97 2k going against Exch5.5 2k) over DSL/Cable.
There is one annoyance which may account for the port 135 reference -
One note related to this. It seems to me that having more than one vendor is as
important as having multiple layers. If you have three or four layers of 'insert your
AV vendor here' products and they miss the boat on some virus, then all of those
layers are irrelevant.
Jon
-Original
A tale of bad programming gone awry, and a cautionary tale concerning our future
ability to push out software upgrades. I work for a company of 1,800 users and over
the past five years my work has included installing and maintaining the companiy's NT
domain and Exchange 5.5 system, automating
That's a nice, arrogant way to put it. I can only hope that the powers-that-be at
Microsoft do not have a similar attitude towards their customers. I do not think it
too much to ask that a fresh install of a supported OS, fully patched using their
supported methods, would allow me to install
something
to do with it? I know IE and Outlook share a lot of components.
- Original Message -
From: Martin, Jon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:59 PM
Subject: Two Unusual Outlook 2002 Problems
Recently I reconfigured my production
Recently I reconfigured my production workstation from scratch to
include:
- Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition; and
- Office XP with sp2
This replaces a Windows 2000 Advanced Server with Office 2000 SR-1.
Now I am getting two weird problems (so far) with Outlook 2002.
1.
Exchange server: Exch2k sp 3/Win2k sp3 relatively recently patched
Outlook client: Win2k Pro with Outlook 2000
User uses the Save To feature regularly to file outgoing mail to various
folders other than the Sent Items folder. Multiple times daily (3 or 4 times
out of 25-50 emails sent using this
We have a strange problem for which the symptoms look like those in 'Q267570
Unable to View Items in Inbox When Accessing OWA Through a Proxy Server
Using Internet Explorer 5 or Later'. However, the details of our specific
problem differ significantly, and therefore the fix in the Q doc is
Message-
From: Martin, Jon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 1:38 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Securing the OWA Kiosk
Mark,
Thanks - interesting audit. If we decide to go forward with
allowing non-VPN
clients access to Outlook we will take a closer
Message -
From: Hansen, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 6:07 PM
Subject: RE: Securing the OWA Kiosk
We use a VPN/terminal services combo, works good.
-Original Message-
From: Martin, Jon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Oh - now there is a company I've heard of. Thanks.
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Andy Haigh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 3:38 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Securing the OWA Kiosk
Nfuse as in Citrix
-Original Message-
From: Martin, Jon
for some more details. Be aware that
the document is useful, but the issues in it (as well as your #1) are
handled by Messageware's SecureLogoff product.
http://www.messageware.net/audits/owa.html
-Original Message-
From: Martin, Jon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11
On the common practice follow-up question, I should have been a bit more
concise by indicating that my question relates to users who are connecting
to our corporate email system via the Internet, not internal users.
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Martin, Jon
Sent: Thursday, December 12
How are folks handling the following potential security risks using OWA from
unsecured workstations, such as a kiosk or library environment?
1. Cached web pages, etc. on the workstation. User walks away without
closing the browser, the next user has access to the previous users' email.
2.
After migrating the mailboxes from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2000 (basically
by bringing new Exchange 2000 servers into our Exchange 5.5 organization and
then moving mailboxes from the 5.5 to 2000 servers) we have ended up with
two outstanding problems that, to date, PSS has not been able to
Fallout from Exchange 5.5 to 2000 Upgrade Part II:
After migrating the mailboxes from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2000 (basically
by bringing new Exchange 2000 servers into our Exchange 5.5 organization and
then moving mailboxes from the 5.5 to 2000 servers) we have ended up with
two outstanding
The user may know more about their calendars than we do, but we have been
directed by management to make as much calendar info available as possible
to assist in creating a meeting. If you have to call a user who is blocking
this info, it is a waste of time. We update their registry to make 12
an escape character to differentiate the comma from a
delimitor. Smart developers won't find this to be a problem.
Missy
- Original Message -
From: Martin, Jon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 5:58 PM
Subject: LDAP DN Question
My theory:
1. Assuming you install the OS on a new drive, the boot/OS drive is in 4k
blocks by default. You can probably pre-NTFS-format the drive in another
machine with larger or smaller blocks, but you may create other issues by
doing so.
2. Exchange writes to the database in 4k pages.
this all out
in their lab, and report back.
-Original Message-
From: Martin, Jon
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 4:17 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject:RE: Allocation Unit (Cluster) Size Question
Already on order. Thanks.
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Ray Zorz [mailto
In our current NT/Exchange 5.5 system, user display names are formatted as
'lastname, firstname'. In testing Win2k/Exch2k upgrades I noticed, using
ADSI Edit, that the LDAP distinguished name for users ends up 'lastname\,
firstname', with the slash thrown in to escape the comma character.
There
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 3:06 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: NT to AD Backout Problem
My gut feel is that you'd have better luck promoting one of the BDCs to PDC
for backout.
-Original Message-
From: Martin, Jon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday
More of an NT/AD than an Exchange issue, but we're only going to AD to get
to Exchange 2000, so here goes:
As part of planning our migration from our current single NT domain to a
single-forest, single-domain active directory, a plan to back out this
upgrade in case of unforeseen problems is
29 matches
Mail list logo
