RE: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView"

Well, that would certainly prevent us from needing IPv6, wouldn't it? :-) -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 4:53 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "

Re: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView"

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Micheal Espinola Jr wrote: > True, but I just dont like seeing apps like this encapsulated through > HTTP. I think we're eventually going to get to the point where all Internet traffic is on TCP/80 and every computer is going to think its IP address is 192.168.1

RE: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView"

Phone:401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:14 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView" Good to see Microsoft still support

RE: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView"

, February 25, 2009 11:40 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView" HAHAHAHAHA. Not. It was for pr0n! :-) -Original Message- From: Troy Meyer [mailto:troy.me...@monacocoach.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:37

Re: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView"

apsulated communications are bad? > > -Original Message- > From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:14 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView" >

RE: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView"

HAHAHAHAHA. Not. It was for pr0n! :-) -Original Message- From: Troy Meyer [mailto:troy.me...@monacocoach.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:37 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView" ME2, Totally

RE: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView"

, 2009 6:43 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView" True, but I just dont like seeing apps like this encapsulated through HTTP. Its not what it was intended for. They should at least have the decency to pick another por

Re: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView"

2 >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Michael B. Smith >> wrote: >>> Are you saying that encapsulated communications are bad? >>> >>> Or that unencrypted encapsulated communications are bad? >>> >>> -Original Message- >&g

RE: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView"

Please someone call the Waaa-bulance :) Shook -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 9:43 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView&q

Re: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView"

es in the OSS world too. > > -Original Message- > From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:38 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView" > > De

RE: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView"

espin...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:38 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView" Decisions, decisions! :-) -- ME2 On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Michael B. Smith wrote: > Are you saying that encapsula

Re: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView"

ailto:michealespin...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:14 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView" > > Good to see Microsoft still supports bitching things through port 80. > Way to go -

RE: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView"

Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 4:19 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft > "SharedView" > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Alverson, Tom (Xetron) > wrote: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Sh

Re: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView"

end which has a URL with the > session name and password embedded (they just need to click the link and > you need to accept). > > Tom > > -Original Message- > From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 4:19 PM > To: NT System A

RE: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView"

Admin Issues Subject: Re: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView" On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Alverson, Tom (Xetron) wrote: > Similar but different.  Netmeeting is point to point.  SharedView > appears to communicate through Microsoft servers

Re: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView"

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Alverson, Tom (Xetron) wrote: > Similar but different.  Netmeeting is point to point.  SharedView > appears to communicate through Microsoft servers Ahhh, I see. Thanks for the clarification. -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a reso

RE: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView"

@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 4:19 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView" On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Alverson, Tom (Xetron) wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SharedView Sounds like Ne

Re: Another screen sharing gizmo (free) from Microsoft "SharedView"

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Alverson, Tom (Xetron) wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SharedView Sounds like NetMeeting all over again. -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ ~