Followup.
Anyone know anything about a browser called Crazy Browser at
www.crazybrowser.com
I found this browser listed in the w3svc1 log files referencing one of
the accounts that sent out a bunch of the spam.
Also, anyone ever hear of a way to send bulk email through owa.
We have owa
I'm not sure how lowering the cost on the RGC on E2K7 would force email to
travel through the legacy RGC and out of the SMTP connector for Exchange 2003.
Maybe I'm missing the point here.
Thank you,
_
John Bowles
From: Brian Dwyer
Anything is possible when you are talking about a third-party
browser rendering pages ala IE.
I would ban it.
http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,23119-order,4-c,browsersclients/description.html
--
ME2
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Glen Johnsongjohn...@vhcc.edu wrote:
Followup.
All-
I'm unsure of how to go about doing this so I'm leaning on the list for some
guidance. In E2K3 we used an OWA redirect so users would type in
webmail.company.com and it would direct them to the OWA server.
Now when we are moving to E2K7 and utilizing the CAS server role to handle our
Guys,
Due to the budget issues here in California, my agency is down to the
wire with renewing our SSL cert for Exchange. I've already told my
manager that we can easily go with one of the cheaper alternatives, and
have the same security, but she's really wanting to stick with Verisign.
Due
Just updated the IP's for DNS records and firewalls to point to our external
facing NLB'd CAS servers. It was seamless.
Thanks,
- JB
From: John Bowles [mailto:john.bow...@wlkmmas.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:06 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: OWA Coexisting between E2K3 and
Now are you still coexisting with E2K3? Or is this solely E2K7?
_
John Bowles
From: Barsodi.John [john.bars...@igt.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:35 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OWA Coexisting between E2K3 and E2K7
Just
Fully migrated. Coexistence lasted from Nov '08 until June '09. I had two
2003 OWA(FE) boxes and those were the first to get decom'd. Everyone ran off
the 2k7 CAS boxes for OWA access.
Thanks,
- JB
From: John Bowles [mailto:john.bow...@wlkmmas.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:37 AM
To:
If your cert expires, users will have to either configure their browsers
to allow them to go the site, or click through warning/error messages to
get there.
I would believe depending on your mobile phone setup those users will
have similar problems.
Have you looked into generating your own
Did you have them all accessing the default URL's (compan.com/exchange or
company.com/owa) for their OWA access then created a simpler URL after you
guy's were fully moved over?
_
John Bowles
From: Barsodi.John [john.bars...@igt.com]
Sent:
I know about GoDaddy, and recommend it every time any of our 4 SSL certs
come up for renewal. But the manager wants to stay with the industry
standard Verisign. I'm the kind of guy that buys the Shasta colas, or
the Sam's colas, because it's pretty much the same thing at half the
price.
I
Many of our users had the /exchange bookmarked, but our Security team setup all
the redirects on the firewalls in case they hit owawhatever.company.com because
we moved which datacenter the owa entry point was located at.
Thanks,
- JB
From: John Bowles [mailto:john.bow...@wlkmmas.org]
Sent:
Joe,
All the modern browsers strongly warn against continuing to a website that has
a self-signed certificate. However, I believe they also allow the user to
permanently accept the self-signed certificate which will block future warnings.
In the case of the soda, you've probably got a
Anyone deploy SP1 RU9 over the weekend? Any feedback?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/970162
Thanks,
- JB
So If I understand your example... people who were in per say
oldowa.company.com(e2k3) and when they are moved to E2K7 their URL they were
told to use is newowa.company.com?
_
John Bowles
From: Barsodi.John [john.bars...@igt.com]
Sent:
I haven't installed RU9, but from my last experience installing RU8 it was a
nightmare cause it gave me the old OWA white screen and the only way to fix it
was to uninstall the CAS role and unistall IIS and then reinstall IIS again
with the CAS role installed finally.
_
John
i'm running it on several servers. i didn't have any problems.
From: Barsodi.John [john.bars...@igt.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:03 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: SP1 RU9
Anyone deploy SP1 RU9 over the weekend? Any feedback?
Verisign is not an industry standard. The cert's themselves are
standards. Verisign is just a high-profile name.
Think of them as the Cadillac of certificate providers if you will.
Are they high performance? Not really. Full of bloat and
over-priced? Yep. But when the cert is only meant for
You can certainly use a homemade cert.
Users will get a warning that they will have to click through (annoying
and does not enforce best practices).
Depending on their browser config they may not be allowed access at all.
Additionally, we have found that with some browsers users will get
ME,
I've tried educating. But since she's the one paying the bill, if she wants to
pay $400, instead of $30, who am I to argue? And I originally intended the
high-profile name, versus what I actually said. That's why I brought up the
soda analogy. Man, my head is fuzzy today.
Joe Heaton
Sorry no.
We had name1.company.com which referenced Datacenter1. We implemented
name2.company.com for Datacenter2. On the firewalls, we redirected
name1.company.com/* to name2.company.com/exchange. We also redirected
name2.company.com to name2.company.com/exchange
Now that we are 100%
I'm waiting for SP2 because we already tested patches this month, and SP2
should be out soon.
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@owa.smithcons.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:09 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SP1 RU9
i'm running it on several servers. i didn't have any
With regards to this issue I believe the following is true with a self signed
certificate
1.)On the browsers the users would have to agree to continue to the site
everytime until they add the certificate to the machine. This is a pain
particularly with mobile users and OWA access from
Since the Exchange team already announced it, I'm not spilling any secrets by
saying that the named property handling change that is introduced by SP2 needs
to be CAREFULLY EVALUATED by anyone using Archiving software or third party
anti-spam filtering software.
And by that I mean - don't
Is that named properties change different then the change that went into RU8 ??
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@owa.smithcons.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:00 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SP1 RU9
Since the Exchange team already announced it, I'm not spilling any
YES!
The change in SP1 RU8 is being rolled out (or enhanced, from a different
perspective) and a different solution is added.
http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/06/12/451596.aspx
This WILL have an impact on POP and IMAP clients and MAY have an impact on
other clients that depend on named
Considering that she's about to have you waste over $350 of taxpayer money I
think any citizen of California should be concerned.
From: Joe Heaton [jhea...@etp.ca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:21 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OWA /
#2 is not necessarily true. I did not install the self-signed cert into my
iPhone.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Peter Johnson peter.john...@peterstow.com
wrote:
With regards to this issue I believe the following is true with a self
signed certificate
1.)On the browsers the
Sure does! Thanks for clarifying that, much appreciated.
_
John Bowles
From: Barsodi.John [john.bars...@igt.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:23 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OWA Coexisting between E2K3 and E2K7
Sorry no.
We
Learn something new every day!! Thanks again Michael for preemptively saving
me..
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@owa.smithcons.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:00 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SP1 RU9
Since the Exchange team already announced it, I'm not spilling any
That's interesting Jonathon. Do u happen to have checked if the cert is loaded
on the iPhone? I'm wondering if it added it by itself. My statement was based
on my experience with Windows Mobile devices.
From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
Sent: 21 July 2009 18:27
To:
No, it's not loaded.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Peter Johnson
peter.john...@peterstow.comwrote:
That’s interesting Jonathon. Do u happen to have checked if the cert is
loaded on the iPhone? I’m wondering if it added it by itself. My statement
was based on my experience with Windows
When I reset the password on the two accounts that were sending all the
spam, it stopped and hasn’t returned so the only conclusion I’ve come up
with is that these two accounts got their password stolen, and then some
script or bot accessed their OWA account and sent all the spam.
Does that
Jason,
What are these +AD4-, etc, codes about? They appear to represent high
ascii. They are constantly in your emails, and other than being
somewhat annoying when they are interjected into the middle of words
(apostrophe use, etc).
They are most annoying when they break the links that you
[Looks like I'll give up on UTF with all the broken clients out
theresorry for the inconvenience.]
When I reset the password on the two accounts that were sending all the
spam, it stopped and hasn't returned so the only conclusion I've come up
with is that these two accounts got their
This is the best response I have read so far on this subject. Of
importance is the issue of mobile clients. Depending upon version, they
vary from easy to install an un-trusted Authorities certificate to being
impossible to install one.
Jonathan Link said #2 is not necessarily true. I did not
I am using a self-signed cert for OWA\Active-Sync and each iPhone pops up a
screen once asking if you want to allow the cert. Once you hit allow it
happily connects to the site with no more complaints.
From: Greg Wright [mailto:greg.wri...@wineselectors.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009
I don't have an answer (seems that in e2k3 you'd just login to the
resource as a user and set the calendar options like a user but I could
be wrong).
opinion on
Does every single meeting have to be confidential? We typically feel
that employee's calendars as well as resource calendars are for
Go with Thawte. Owned by Verisign and cheaper...
On 7/21/09, Joe Heaton jhea...@etp.ca.gov wrote:
I know about GoDaddy, and recommend it every time any of our 4 SSL certs
come up for renewal. But the manager wants to stay with the industry
standard Verisign. I'm the kind of guy that buys the
Its true and not at the same time. Its true because no, you dont
install a self-signed cert. Its false that the iPhone works with
them, because it doesnt. It ignores the security condition.
However, I believe you can put your own certs on an iPhone via the
iPhone Configuration Utility.
40 matches
Mail list logo
