> -----Original Message----- > From: Aristotle Zoulas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 2:52 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: PST Files on a network share > > As an IT Manager of a decent size organization, I would say the most > valuable employees get the job done with the resources at hand.
I'd argue that the most valuable employees are those who understand the technological issues as well as the driving business needs. There's something to be said for an employee who implements a new solution which solves a problem and adds to the companies bottom line through increased productivity or reduced cost. If employee a proposes a solution which solves the problem using the resources at hand and employee b proposes a solution which costs 5k, but saves 10k can one unequivocally say that a is more valuable than b? >There have > been many articles that show too many IT Departments today are "OVER- > RAIDED, > Over Staffed, and Over-Redundant." The idea of throwing money at something > to "make it 'go away"', is for the uneducated. There are "levels" of risk > and degrees of safety. The maximum is not for everybody. True. But there are certain minimums which time and experience have shown to be inadequate. Looking specifically at PST files on file shares.... could one store the data there? Yes. Savings in this example: The cost of an upgrade to an Exchange enterprise CAL. Next year when a court order for e-mail document discovery is received, that Exchange enterprise CAL cost is likely going to pale in comparison to the cost required to grep PST files for relavent documents. > To go out and spend money to get a job done is simple. To get it done > without spending money (or spending less) requires thinking and planning. An apples and oranges comparison. Any solution, whether it is 'free' or requires a capital expenditure must first be subjected to thought and planning. > As an example, removing the ability to send "high risk" files (*.pif, > *.bat, > etc.) within exchange drastically reduces the likelihood of getting a > virus > in your company. To not perform the above and to opt to get some EXPENSIVE > software is doing your company an injustice. Without implementing an AV solution or upgrading clients to a version of Outlook which can block those file types, the ability to perform the actions you describe cannot be achieved. Both can potentially require a capital expenditure. > It is our duty to get the job done while keeping expenses low. All while > presenting risk levels and exposure to the company owners. If they will > pay > for it, let them decide. I'd contend it is our duty to understand the business needs of our organization and to propose and implement solutions which best meet the needs of our customers (from both a financial and productivity standpoint). I have no qualms about proposing implementing a multi-million dollar solution or a $500 solution for a customer if the solution benefits the company. Sure, either proposal might get put off or rejected but there are times that a solution is worth fighting for (hence my 4 requests for AV software in a 12 month period). Doing it as cheaply as possible or spending money when you have it available to spend are both stupid philosophies in and of themselves. > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:35 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: PST Files on a network share > > Mr. Tech, > > I've worked for companies with 3 employees to 130k employees. I've seen > managers and CxO's focused different things at every level. I've seen > small > companies which were visionary in the tech spending and technology > implementations and fortune 500 companies who had IT shops so bad I > wouldn't > piss on them when they burst into flames (and they will). > > There is no large company utopia of unlimited resources, one could > rephrase > your question and wonder where small companies come from in thinking that > large organizations have unlimited resources to throw at problems and that > their issues are unique to them because they are small fish. > > When I worked for $vbc I put in 4 requests for an enterprise AV solution > ($65k) and had it turned down all four times. Only when they finally got > hammered by a virus did they come to me and direct me to implement a > solution to prevent it from happening again. > > Sure sometimes people are forced into suboptimal situations. I know of one > large credit organization which allows PST files on network shares, but > that > doesn't make it a good idea. I for one and happy when someone warns me it > will hurt to hit myself in the head with an axe before I try it. > > If you really want to get into an in depth discussion of budget, resource > and user management I'll send you my consulting rate. But as I see it your > arguments against improvements in IT process management are currently a > bit > weak. > > BTW, Exchange standard has a 16GB limit BTW, not an 18GB limit. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: tech [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 2:08 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: PST Files on a network share > > > > Are the disks on your file server cheaper than the disks in your > > Exchange server? > > ---- > > > > It is cheaper to own standard edition of Exchange than Enterprise, > > standard has an 18gb limit. > > > > Some companies have a freeze on upgrading, so what do you suggest to > > administrators that do not work in the Utopia of a large corporation > > with resources. Most users claim not to have the time or feel their > > mail is too important to delete. Yes including the Amazon special > > offers. > > > > Most small companies do not care about working the right way in the long > > run, they want to know what is the cheapest way in the short term. They > > might not be around next year. My feelings are that with that attitude > > no wonder, but many of us work for those companies and have a boss that > > is only looking at today and keeping his job. > > > > When you guys reply to these messages I just wonder whether you know who > > the audience on this list are? From the dizzy heights of Compaq it may > > seem odd that admins keep making the same mistakes but many admins > > propose the correct solution only to actually do what is approved three > > of four declines later. > > > > Nathan > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
