I see I am not the only one still working. But I am on the west coast. Thanks for your continuing efforts Kevin.
John T eServices For You > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Imail_Forum- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Gillis > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 11:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] OT: Imail 2006 problems to get worse when Vista > Released > > Hi Bruce, > > Good comments. > > An updated, alternative IIS security model doc is now out for review by > expert users and others. Essence of it is creating a new user, and not > using IUSR_computername. > > Instead of using IUSR, using User IISuser for the WebAdmin and User IIS_WPG > for Web Client on IIS6 or User ASPNET on IIS5), for managing IMail. We > expect to publish next week. > > By for now, > > kg > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bruce Barnes > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 4:27 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] OT: Imail 2006 problems to get worse when > Vista Released > > > Robert; > > I was not complaining at all about the enhanced security of the VISTA > product. On the contrary, if you have read any of my previous posts > concerning the (lack of) security within IMail 2006; ie: the "security" of > everyone having "all write/change/etc" access to all of the directories into > which IMail has working access, is my biggest complaint about the current > release of the 2006 product, and we, as a company, have delayed the > installation of IMail 2006 until this problem is resolved. > > We work with several high-security aspects of both networking and credit > card processing security and we're already told during one audit that they > would rescind all of our CISP certifications if we installed the current > release of IMail onto any of the servers within our networks. > > My comment, and the link that I supplied within what I wrote, was a heads-up > to the IMail development team to let them know they will have to resolve not > only the current security issues, but also bring both this product, and any > future releases, into compliance with the enhanced requirements of VISTA. > > I totally concur that we all need substantially enhanced security in all > aspects of computing and applaud Microsoft for taking this next step. > > Bruce Barnes > ChicagoNetTech Inc > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: "Robert E. Spivack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 11:35:56 -0800 > > So, what's your point? > > That having real security is a PIA? > > Sorry, the majority of the IT community has been begging for greater > security and welcomes these changes. > > Sure, developers and admins will have to learn how to do things "The right > way" and stop being sploppy. > > Of course, you can still always override by giving "allow everything" > rights, but that's how this mess started in the first place. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Barnes > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 4:50 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [IMail Forum] OT: Imail 2006 problems to get worse when Vista > Released > > Not to throw any more water on the development fire at IPSwitch, but the > current problems with directory permissions and the ability of users to be > able to WRITE to file areas under Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 are just the > beginning of the headaches in store for us in the future. > > Under Windows VISTA overall operating system security will be significantly > more substantial. > > READ - if we thought setting up the program and configuring file permissions > for IMail 2006 is bad now, just wait for Windows VISTA. Apparently > Microsoft, in an effort to rein in the plethora of security problems they > have had is in the past is SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCING the areas of the operating > system that both the USERS and INSTALLED SOFTWARE will be able to actually > have WRITE permissions to in their latest design. > > Additionally, there will no longer be a default SESSION ISOLATION. In both > past and current session isolations, the logged in user was always setup as > SESSION ISOLATION 0 (ZERO). That will no longer be the case in VISTA! > > See: > http://windowsconnected.com/blogs/joshs_blog/archive/2006/01/07/295.aspx for > more information about the potential headaches for both developers and end > users. > > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ > Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ > > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ > Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Sent via the WebMail system at huntz.chicagonettech.com > > > > > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ > Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ > > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ > Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
