Need a little more information: Is this all users or a random sampling of users that were migrated? Once you do this, do you have to do it again later?On 6/28/06,
Teo De Las Heras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've migrated serveral computer account to AD. Among the migrated accounts, once a day,
32 and 64-bit DCs don't have a problem being in the same environment. Is your schema up to date with the latest revisions (R2 I believe)?
All I can think of when thinking of hardcoding mailbox limits in AD is Do you want to undo this when more storage becomes available?In other words, do you want to go through every single user in your environment (55k in mine) and modify that advanced attribute? Sure, I can build a _vbscript_ to do
That may or may not be the issue. Can the user login to any computer or is it just this one?On 7/7/06, Za Vue [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I am not sure
whether it was this forum or the other forum I am also on, but some of
us were having problems with XP boxes hanging on Applying Computer
with their local DC (ugh!).
On 7/7/06, Za Vue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This happened on a lot of my computers, randomly. For the past few
weeks everyone has been quiet.
-Z.V.
Matt Hargraves wrote:
That may or may not be the issue. Can the user login to
any computer or is it just this one
I believe the reason they recommend against this is because all applications are different. Another problem is that there is no guarantee that the application will remain the same. Patches and updates can change more than just a file here and a file there, they can change settings such as these
Not sure where you're at with the number of groups per user.I like to think of the initial setting for token size as a way of saying You really need to get your security model under control or fix this user's group memberships. At 12k, you shouldn't really be pushing the limit until you're around
Just noticed that we both referred to the same token limitation article. It's easy to find when you know what to look for. If you do a search in Google for Token limitation it's the first item that pops up.
Good news is, if you look around on the Exchange team blog site, you'll find articles about Exchange 2007 on 64-bit Windows (it's not going to support a 32-bit OS) and basically the paged pool memory issue goes away completely (lots more room for that stuff when we're talking about 64-bit
I've never seen a problem with doing this stuff before and there are actually some backup solution providers that recommend using a paralell network for backup data to transmit across.That being said, I think the most important thing for you to make sure that you're *not* doing is testing it out
Not so sure I agree with that. Thin clients work just fine, require less maintenance and can be replaced in 5 minutes, vs. the 3 hour argument that you'll get if you try replacing someone's desktop because they saved 19 items that have nothing to do with their job on the local hard drive.
Then
I guess it really comes down to one thing:What does your employer want?If they want to be able to sell off the asset quickly and smoothly, a trusted peer forest is the way to go. If they want to save money now, then just build some OUs and go that direction.
Make sure that they know the
] Multihomed Domain Controllers
I know we're drifting off-topic, but I read this and started thinking: laptops. Why bother with desktops?
On 7/12/06, Matt Hargraves
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not so sure I agree with that. Thin clients work just fine, require less maintenance and can be replaced
I usually don't like loopback. It's just kinda messy in most situations.But for reference to Darren's question, you might want to look at:http://support.microsoft.com/?id=231287
On 7/13/06, Darren Mar-Elia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pat-
Have you tried using GPMC's GP Results wizard to ensure
Well, you could always ACL your AD better and make it where only a small number (2 or 3 accounts) of users can make AD organizational changes. Moving, creating and deleting OUs isn't necessary that often to where it's really all that necessary of a right for most admins. I think that in our
I am simply pointing out his options. If you noticed, my first recommendation was to ACL his AD structure so that only a very small number of people could perform that type of task.I'm definitely not going to say that tools should be the savior for people who make mistakes, but they're darned nice
She's talking about Exchange 2007. Go look at the ms Exchange blog site and you'll see some references. (http://msexchangeteam.com/default.aspx)The nice thing about it is that most everything that I saw that they were doing with a command line you could do with the GUI. The only difference is that
There are a few times where upgrading is easier than installing fresh and doesn't have that big of an impact... but most times I prefer to simply install fresh.There are only a few examples of where I think that upgrading is better or easier overall:
1) Workstations -- I'd rather upgrade a Win2k
Well, when you're mapping to \\server\share\directory, if the user has permission issues at the directory level (their actual home share location), I believe that it will simply map to the share and not go into the directory.
Make sure that you have granted all users Full Control at the share
this
problem be intermittent and not every single time the user logs in?
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Matt Hargraves
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 6:03 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Home
directories issue
Well, when
I'd say that it should depend on the size of your environment.I've seen the difference in performance between a 64-bit DC and a 32-bit DC in a large environment and unless a VM can run with enough RAM to load your entire DIT database in RAM, then a VM would be a poor idea, IMO.
In other words:
Actually... thinking more about it, I think I'd rather go VMware for something else on a physical DC. In other words: load up a low utilization server on a VM inside a DC. This reduces your vulnerability, IMO.
On 7/19/06, Matt Hargraves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd say that it should depend
I've done some looking around on Microsoft's site, but can't find the information that I need.What can be done with/to the automatic trusts that are created when a new tree is created in a forest and/or a new subdomain is created?
I understand that 2-way transitive trusts are created, but can I
So basically there's no way to have a domain in a forest that doesn't fully trust every other domain in the forest?The only way to have a non 2-way trust is to make a separate forest?
Basically we're looking at creating a resource domain because the objects that need to go in that domain really do need to get out of our current user environment.But if you can't move items into a forest without having an automatic 2-way transitive trust, then we might need to just go with a
Just as an FYI: I've seen 64-bit DCs run and I have one thing that I can recommend to everyone:Go 64-bits as soon as possible. There are hundreds of benefits on the server side when going 64-bits, whether it's Exchange (yay for 2007) or your DCs, the performance level is just staggering compared
That being said wait on 64-bits for the client side until you know, unequivocably, that all of the software that your clients need is supported and stable on a 64-bit OS. The performance boost isn't that big of a deal, just to be honest.
On 7/23/06, Matt Hargraves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just
It's not that big of a deal for client software (last message)On 7/23/06, Matt Hargraves [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:That being said wait on 64-bits for the client side until you know, unequivocably, that all of the software that your clients need is supported and stable on a 64-bit OS
Go to google, type in Token limitation and click on the first item...On 7/23/06, Grillenmeier, Guido
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
because the objects that need to
go in that domain really do need to get out of our current user
environment.
Matt, this doesn't yet sound to me like
Is he a manager or a technical lead? There's a world of difference between the two.Technical leads have many of the responsibilities of a manager (handing out tasks, interfacing with upper management, discipline, etc...) but also have to be able to 'get their hands dirty', in other words, they
I was just curious if I could avoid the 2-way transitive trust. Current resources in domains for those resources are being moved into AD. Many have 1-way trusts and we'd like to keep that status if possible. I was hoping I could do it in the same forest, but since that's not possible we just have
What is your plan? Do you want speed in restoration or backup? Do you have a 24-hour facility or is it an 8-hour facility? Do you have a tape changer or a single tape unit (changing tapes daily)?If you have an 8-hour facility and the server is close to you, then weekend fulls and differentials is
So basically it sounds like you need a technically savvy person who has very good understanding of AD, but is going to come back to you with any concerns about a design direction that you've come up with instead of going through and revamping it completely... 'basic user' or 'admins'...
Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for. Oddly enough, it's somewhere on MS's site, though my 5-8 queries never came up with it (the wonderful joys of searching on microsoft.com). Now I can give them 2 options separate forest with a 1-way trust or a subdomain (since there really isn't a
It sounds like you have a good test environment. The only problem is that people may be scheduling their testing a little too tightly. They need to understand that this is a *TEST* environment. That means it's in a constant state of relative flux and that at any point in time, it could possibly go
You either have a small environment or someone wants a document that will be completely outdated 12 minutes after it's compiled.Though just to be honest, I'd love to be able to click on a '+' on groups and show their members and continue to follow the '+' if there is nesting. That would be an
PROTECTED] wrote:
We're medium size – and yes someone does want a current outdated
list J -
Just trying to make it happen….
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Matt Hargraves
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:02 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Having went through this quite a bit recently, I'll see if I can give you some help on this. Every security group on a user's token adds about 45 bytes to the token and sometime around 80 security groups, you can expect a token to break 4k and bump up to 8k. This will have the most impact to
Somehow I avoided answring your question the first time...Going global role-based group and local task-based group is pretty standard in larger environments.You create the global group to hold users and the local group to hold users. The purpose for this is so that you can nest multiple role-based
>From my experience, Restricted Groups settings simply state what the computer (or domain controller if you stick the setting in your DCs GPO) will make sure what the group memberships are going to be when it checks the GPO. If you set the Administrators group to be Domain Admins; groupa; groupb
some work later do both, but consider the role-based groups to be the preferred path.
On 7/26/06, Dan Holme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's what I get for reading my inbox "up"… David: do read my
treatise in my earlier email.
But Matt Hargraves response did rai
I'm not understanding why the OP doesn't just stick the new drives in, create the new RAID set from those, create the drives and restore from tape to the new RAID drives. As long as he does it on a Sunday, it shouldn't really take more than an hour to get the old drives out and the new ones in
By revoking Domain Admins I mean revoking their membership...On 7/31/06, Matt Hargraves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd think of revoking Domain Admins and grant them their rights via an RBS group in AD. Changing the rights of the builtin admin groups isn't something that you should necessarily do
I'd think of revoking Domain Admins and grant them their rights via an RBS group in AD. Changing the rights of the builtin admin groups isn't something that you should necessarily do, primarily because so many applications out there require special privileges and fail out because the application
I guess the gist of what everyone is saying can be summed up with the following:What does the current environment look like?How extensive is your Exchange deployment going to be?Without some of that information, it's only going to be a vague guess that anyone can give. I seriously doubt you need
I thought all that stuff was part of the Server 2003 R2 schema extensions and would work in XP also.On 7/28/06, Darren Mar-Elia
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In case anyone is
interested, here's a doc that describes the AD schema extensions that will be
required to support the new wireless
om:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Matt Hargraves
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 12:02 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange rollout - How much larger does
NTDS.DIT become?
I guess the gist of what
everyone is saying can be summed up with the
or between volumes), DLT alone can eat up many hundred meg of your
AD DIT. Did he defrag or not? Etc.
/Guido
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Matt Hargraves
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 10:46 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchan
This might be something that I can do with a combination of scripts, though I'm not sure where I'd get them from.1) I need to be able to export a list of users (the userID is fine) with their group memberships. (AD objects)
2) I need to be able to export a list of groups with their list of members
in a tent in a zoo... if you are going to be without power
and electricity camping in a zoo at the San Diego Zoo's Wild AnimalPark's Roar and Snore is the way to do it.Matt Hargraves wrote: Joe's blog doesn't seem to say anything about what DSI actually *is*.
I'm not seeing it as a security
That's not even fair I own that book already.I was hoping to avoid doing the scripting part... but that being said, how much of that will work in NT domains to get groups and their members/memberships?
On 8/1/06, Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can certainly get all the
I always recommend transferring FSMO roles from a box before upgrading it, then moving it back after the upgrade is completed successfully.If you've got enough DCs to justify splitting FSMO roles, you've got enough to move it to another box for a week to upgrade the box.
On 8/13/06, Chong Ai Chung
Yeah, it's called creating a GPO that has that setting disabled (not not defined, disabled).You could always look at it as having to create a whole new GPO because they want to define whatever that object is on everything else. If they didn't want to define that, you'd be golden and wouldn't have
In case nobody figured it out, this was a mistake. Brandon hasn't been receiving anything from the activedir list. Apparently he's been banned or something. (in case you didn't figure the rest out, I know him and asked if he was the same OP Brandon, which he confirmed)
He accidentally added the
Yeah, I just let him know he messed up on this one. Can't argue with banning him after 2 messups. :(On 9/5/06, Tony Murray
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Not sure what's going on so I have temporarily suspended his subscription.
TonyList owner and humourless [EMAIL
I am trying to specify the builtin IWAM/IUSR accounts in GPO settings. We have a set of servers within an OU where they require the account to have rights on the local servers, call them Server1, Server2, Server3. We obviously don't want to create the setting for IWAM_Server1, IWAM_Server2,
Your best bet is to place it in a separate site within AD Sites and Services I believe.This is the method that MS recommends for segregating DCs that are used for Exchange servers.
On 9/12/06, Lucas, Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to isolate a DC from regular user
I think this is one of those Why in the heck things. Like Why in the heck would you give someone a laptop with wireless if you don't want them connecting anywhere other than work? and Why in the heck are you giving them a laptop in the first place?.
There are some ways to do this, none of them
Yeah, I was thinking a combination of RIS, GPO deployed applications and LANDesk. I've been on projects where we utilized a combination of those methods to manage and deploy software. Worked great and unlike wonderful solutions like SMS, we could put in scripts as part of the application
Isolating via site will still leave the DC available in case of emergencies (your authentication DCs go down), whereas IPSec makes them completely unavailable for any purposes for clients. I've actually never heard of anyone doing this and would consider it a very bad idea unless you have
Yeah, I didn't mean to sound so negative it just seems like isolating by site (which is a logical, not physical barrier) is a more holistic solution which provides the isolation required, while allowing the DCs to continue to potentially (in an emergency situation) perform the duties of user
I'm not s huge DNS geek, so I'm not sure whether you can do this, but can't you just set the DHCP to have a short expiration (1 hour?) and it will unregister the 'old' entry for a machine? There would be a small amount of vulnerability, but it would go away after the client's reservation expires.
and whitepapers. Also check out
the Windows
Group Policy Guide,the definitiveresource for Group Policy
information.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Hargraves
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:00 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject
PROTECTED] wrote:
No it wouldn't. Why are you giving an IWAM account access to a
remote machine?
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
c - 312.731.3132
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Matt Hargraves
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:35
]] On
Behalf Of Matt Hargraves
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:49 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Specifying builtin accounts in GPO settings.
We're having some issues with
Exchange OWA and MS said something about IWAM when we called them. We're
not granting
]
[mailto:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Hargraves
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:49 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] Specifying builtin accounts in GPO settings.
We're having some issues with Exchange OWA and MS said something about IWAM when we
I agree with the people who are saying Either trust all of them or none of them. Realistically, unless you have a large environment (BTW, some people argue that all but maybe 10 Fortune 100 companies are 'medium' sized and the other
99.% of organizations are 'small'), there should only be a
Conceptual situation:User domainResource domain (s)I bring all users into a single AD environment, bringing over SID History information.Now I start moving over file servers from the resource domain to the AD environment. One of the file servers has groups ACL'd from the resource domain. When the
Unfortunately that's not even close to what I was having issues with Joe.I'm more concerned with how tokens are created and whether they will by default query the old resource domains that haven't been migrated into the AD environment.
Theoretical situtation: I am a member of 50 groups in my user
Yeah, read that document before. It doesn't say whether it's going to go scanning domains for SID History memberships, so I have to assume that unless I have a group that points to a user's SID History SID within that AD environment (or in that authentication chain), then it's not going to add in
OK, I think that I pretty much had it figured out, just wanted to get some level of validation.Thanks for all the help.On 9/26/06,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
I went through a similar 'thought experiment' a few years
ago. Whilst I didn't actually test my conclusions, I
Any chance you can edit the setting so that it points to something not in your network? (ex. you have a 10.x.x.x network, so you reset it to be a 192.168.x.x IP)On 9/26/06,
Clingaman, Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My two DCs are Windows 2003 servers, DNS integrated, Primary,The resiliant entries
Yeah... MS is going to get really high levels of adoption on this product...Gotta wonder what in the heck they're thinking sometimes.On 10/2/06,
Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=26Mary Jo Foley reports that the next
I'm not sure if I was going to test for an Exchange environment that I wouldn't want to make sure that, at the very least, I still had the extensions in place for Exchange in the schema.
On 10/3/06, Almeida Pinto, Jorge de [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have a look
:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Matt Hargraves
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 1:34 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] OT: Volume licensing activation
Yeah... MS is going to get
really high levels of adoption on this product...
Gotta wonder what in the heck they're
If you're using a transform file to deploy, you should be able to define the default file location, either as a variable (%homedrive%) or alternatively, you can install the GPO extensions for MS Office and set the item via GPO and stop worrying, as long as you test it a little bit before deploying
setting it to basically be unbrowsable, but it sounds like you're going 1/2 a step too far (at least for the purposes of the applications in your environment).
On 10/5/06, Matt Hargraves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're using a transform file to deploy, you should be able to define the default file
What's funny is that actual encyclopedias have almost the same level of accuracy as Wikipedia on any particular subject. Part of that is the fact that they're always 1-3+ years out of date when they are published and the other part is that many 'facts' are actually just theories and there are
I thought it was 9A:DOn 10/5/06, Laura A. Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
999,998 + 2 = 1,000,000, not 100,000. ;-) -Original Message- From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Greg Nims
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 11:49 AM To:
Turn on security auditing.On 10/5/06, J B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Argh! On one of our file servers, there is a
public directory that allows any authenticated user to do anything within it
(minus changing permissions). MP3 files and folders appear there every so
often and are removed
Magic 8 ball?Security event logs are great things, learning how to search them for the right data can be invaluable and increase the security at your company drastically. It will mean that instead of saying Who did this?, you will know who did it. Instead of going When did that happen?, you'll
s,* *Brian Desmond*
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * *c - 312.731.3132* * * *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] *On Behalf Of *Matt Hargraves *Sent:* Tuesday, October 03, 2006 1:34 PM *To:*
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org *Subject:* Re: [ActiveDir] OT: Volume licensing activation Yeah... MS is go
Just to cover some things:GPOs can make adjustments to computer *or* user object policies. The only way to override these settings is to use the 'loopback processing' option (this can be ugly and I prefer to avoid it). If you have computer settings set on a GPO on an OU, it will only apply to
>From Microsoft's website: Event ID: 630 Type: Success AuditDescription: User Account Deleted: Target Account Name: %1Target Domain: %2 Target Account ID: %3 Caller User Name: %4
Caller Domain: %5 Caller Logon ID: %6
to another server or have software that saves them)
On 10/6/06, Matt Hargraves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>From Microsoft's website: Event ID: 630 Type: Success AuditDescription: User Account Deleted: Target Account Name: %1Target Domain: %2 Target Account ID:
Yeah, I guess it's one of those If you don't need it, get rid of it things for me.Not going to use it? Just disable it and get rid of the excuse for some half-informed admin from going in and putting settings on there (we all know who they are and probably were him at some point in time, I'm sure
as much as it does you big serverland guys)
Matt Hargraves wrote: I know you probably haven't been there very long, but what in the heck are they thinking, making DCs mail servers and FTP servers.Might as
well load them up with web services next. BTW, you probably shouldn't be posting your
There's any number of 'easy' problems that you could be running into.1) Your router isn't set as the default gateway.2) Your router's routing table is messed up.3) You've got your network all messed up (example, you're trying to route to/from a
83.161.118.x/24 subnet to your 83.161.118.XXX/28
is.
On 10/8/06, Matt Hargraves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's any number of 'easy' problems that you could be running into.1) Your router isn't set as the default gateway.2) Your router's routing table is messed up.3) You've got your network all messed up (example, you're trying to route to/from
I wonder if you realize that what you posted was incorrect:1 (-1+1) (-1+1) ...turns into:1*0*0*0So in the end 0 = 0:)On 10/6/06,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very good altho dividing by zero (last step) is not permitted and (asper the below) causes an issue if permitted.How
I'd go with just disabling the service and setting it so that only Domain Admins and System can even manage and/or see the service. This is a 10-minute solution, whereas the others could take quite a bit of time to research how to do correctly.
On 10/2/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is a non-interactive account, but when the service that uses the account goes to login to the PDC emulators, the account gets deleted.This is only happening to 1 account, we have deleted and recreated the account, have created a new account with the same name (and rights) after renaming the
Yeah, just to be honest, as long as you have 3+ DCs, there isn't much reason not to do it though. Even if you lose one, you just rebuild it and repromote it - never restore btw - that can make all kinds of messy issues about replication show up that nobody wants to deal with.
On 10/16/06, Brian
I read this and all I can think is that something happend to your Terminal Server mode on this server. Sometimes settings get changed when you install a security patch, you might want to verify your TS settings and make sure that it's in application mode (non-app mode means that only admins can
See, after being married, I have found a few things are consistent:1) You are always wrong.2) If you think you might say something the wrong way, then it's DEFINITELY going to go badly - VERY badly.3) Always assume that she didn't mean it in the horrible way she phrased it.
4) She will always
I believe that disabling the Automatic Updates service via GPO will block them from installing it, not 100% sure though.Since you're in an educational environment, things can be a little dicey there. You can't restrict the internet (government funds thing) and I don't know offhand whether the IE7
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
c - 312.731.3132
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Matt Hargraves
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:49 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Blocking IE7
I believe that disabling the
Automatic Updates service
I don't usually think of these as security-enabled distribution lists, but as mail-enabled security groups that users can manage in the same manner as they do distribution lists. When you think of them that way, it's not quite so painfully stupid.
Don't get me wrong, turning all your DLs into
for the concept. :)
On 11/7/06, Matt Hargraves
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't usually think of these as security-enabled distribution lists, but as mail-enabled security groups that users can manage in the same manner as they do distribution lists. When you think of them that way, it's not quite
Can't remember offhand if you can do this on a per-site basis or not, but you might be able to stick them in a site and have that site set to a max of 1MB e-mail, then the only way that they'll receive any e-mail is if they delete everything.
On 11/7/06, Navroz Shariff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
