weep).
Cheers, Nick.
> -Original Message-
> From: Darcy Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 05 March 2003 19:15
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: OOO to internet, still bad?
>
>
> I was recently forced to enable OOO to the Internet. Our
> sales
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:33 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: OOO to internet, still bad?
This mail loop was again a result of automatic replies/forwards to the
internet being enabled. OOO responses alone would not have cause this loop.
I can envision several wa
OO to internet, still bad?
Sure. I'm not absolutley convinced, but I will let this die.
My users still want to use the OOO's even after I explain about more
Spam and
the annoyance/inconvenience to the customers, so I can't see them
suddenly
not using them because of a 1 in a
Guess that depends on the business you are in. There's no magic argument
which is going to shut down OOO for all businesses, nor (likely) should
there be.
On 3/6/03 8:20, "Allison M. Wittstock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure. I'm not absolutley convinced, but I will let this die.
>
> My user
Sure. I'm not absolutley convinced, but I will let this die.
My users still want to use the OOO's even after I explain about more Spam and
the annoyance/inconvenience to the customers, so I can't see them suddenly
not using them because of a 1 in a million chance of a social
engineering/secur
One can prove that OOO information has been used in social engineering hacks
though, so doesn't that make the point moot?
On 3/6/03 6:27, "Allison M. Wittstock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But in that case, it is well known that thousand and thousands of websites
> have been hacked in the past,
> -Original Message-
> From: Allison M. Wittstock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 06 March 2003 12:28
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Re: OOO to internet, still bad?
>
>
> But in that case, it is well known that thousand and
> thousands of websites
tramps.
> Ciderspace Cafe: A park Bench.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Allison M. Wittstock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 05 March 2003 17:38
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Re: OOO to internet, still bad?
> >
> >
> &
Cafe: A park Bench.
> -Original Message-
> From: Allison M. Wittstock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 05 March 2003 17:38
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Re: OOO to internet, still bad?
>
>
>
> Ed, since you use this example often, can you pr
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Allison M.
Wittstock
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 9:38 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: OOO to internet, still bad?
Ed, since you use this
lance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick R.
Sweeney
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 10:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: OOO to internet, still bad?
O
Now that's funny :)
Thx for the feedback all!
-Original Message-
From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 12:07 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OOO to internet, still bad?
Speaking of mailbox limits...is there a limit to the mailbox limi
y ideas ?
> Exchange 5.5 SP4
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mellott, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 2:16 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: OOO to internet, still bad?
>
>
> Hey you could reverse the logic
ECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 2:16 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OOO to internet, still bad?
Hey you could reverse the logic here and use this as an important point
about mail box limits
cool
thanks
bill
-Original Message-
From: Darcy Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 2:16 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OOO to internet, still bad?
Hey you could reverse the logic here and use this as an important point
about mail box limits
cool
thanks
bill
-Original Message-
From: Darcy Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This mail loop was again a result of automatic replies/forwards to the
internet being enabled. OOO responses alone would not have cause this loop.
I can envision several ways in which an OOO loop alone could be created, all
of them involved poorly written software and the potential of them actually
Hey you could reverse the logic here and use this as an important point
about mail box limits
cool
thanks
bill
-Original Message-
From: Darcy Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 2:15 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OOO to internet, still bad?
I was
Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:44 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OOO to internet, still bad?
I strongly discourage it in our firm. Usually the most effective argument
against for me has been spam -- we all know that it's a bad idea to reply to
spammers confirming that your address is
ilbox! Tell
>> your friends!
>>
>> Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
>> Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
>> Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAI
; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: OOO to internet, still bad?
> The more substantial risk IMHO is in Human Engineering exploits of your
> business. I've certainly gotten more than enough information in OOA
> responses to attempt such a t
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
>> Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
>> Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Byron Kennedy
>> Sent: Tuesday,
gt;
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Byron Kennedy
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:34 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: OOO to internet, still bad?
>
>
> I know this has caused havoc on e-mail systems
;t forward his message to another
> resource it will go unanswered until at least the day of my return. (The
> use of present tense here is to say this is my normal practice. I don't
use
> OOO at all at the moment since I don't have a job.)
>
>
>
>
> -Patrick
ron Kennedy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 3:23 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: OOO to internet, still bad?
>
>
> Humm... Seems like we could mitigate that risk with verbiage
> in the acceptable use policy on what is acceptable content
I don't use
OOO at all at the moment since I don't have a job.)
-Patrick R. Sweeney
- Original Message -
From: "Byron Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 9:23 PM
Subj
gh
someone would surely bring that point up.
So far, SPAM sounds like the only real solid ground.
:( byron
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OOO to internet, still bad?
The risk of a
esday, March 04, 2003 5:34 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OOO to internet, still bad?
I know this has caused havoc on e-mail systems in the past. Is this
still frowned on and if so, are there any "best-practices" available out
there on how to enable a firm to provide this service e
I strongly discourage it in our firm. Usually the most effective argument
against for me has been spam -- we all know that it's a bad idea to reply to
spammers confirming that your address is legitimate. Throw OOO on
somebody's account and I suspect that their spam load will significantly
increas
I know this has caused havoc on e-mail systems in the past. Is this still
frowned on and if so, are there any "best-practices" available out there on
how to enable a firm to provide this service effectively with exchange 2000,
outlook 2000/xp and avoid pitfalls in the past?
How do others articula
29 matches
Mail list logo
