I once had one back in the exchange 2003 era when outlook came with the server.
The vendor carrying out the audit demanded proof of purchase for my outlook cals? I was like yeah, why don't you pass that to legal and let me know how it goes... I wouldn't worry, document your correspondence, you'll be fine. jlc -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sam Cayze Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 6:27 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [NTSysADM] Revisit: Audit Letter from MS You guys jinxed me, I just got a letter a few days ago too. Here's the kicker, the contact assigned to my case won't return my emails or phone calls. They only gave me to the end of the month to finish the audit. Normally that would be ok, but I'm a 1 man IT shop, SWAMPED with an XP > 7 migration that I'm desperately trying to finish before the next patch Tuesday. Not only that, but our license counts/usage are changing everyday due to the that. Ever heard of companies getting an extension? I would hope in this case they'd grant one... since I'm busy doing what they are begging/forcing companies to do. Tia, Sam -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 8:04 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ? http://blogs.technet.com/b/volume-licensing/archive/2014/03/10/licensing-how -to-when-do-i-need-a-client-access-license-cal.aspx *7 - Do I need CALs for my administrators?* Server software licensed using CALs permits up to 2 users or devices to access the server software for the purposes of administration without CALs. However, if your administrators also use the software for anything other than administration (for example, they check their email), CALs will be required for them as well. On 4/1/2014 5:53 PM, J- P wrote: > As a consultant to this client (not using their exchange) do i require > a windows CAL for Administration tasks? > > thanks > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ? > Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 00:49:25 +0000 > > Unless they have a reason to believe you are lying, yes, it is that easy. > > It's called "true up". > > *From:*[email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *J- P > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 1, 2014 8:40 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ? > > Wow, just got off the phone with them and I told the rep, "company > has 62 users, we have 60 cals for 2012 and ex 2013 & 35 outlook > licenses (All purchased through VL) and the desktops are are all OEM > w7" > > And I added "there is a legacy app on pc with office 97, that we have > no clue where the disc/sleeve is" > > > He replied ,"just purchase the additional CAL's , have an officer sign > the form, send it as PDF and we're done" > > > Really? that easy? is it because the company is so small, or did they > just revamp or did I just step in #$%^ ? > > I replied "you'll have it by the end of the week" > > Jean-Paul Natola > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 16:41:20 -0500 > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ? > > I went through a Microsoft SAM audit in 2012. Started in April and > ended in September. I've been with the same company for 15 years and > good documentation saved us on a few things. In the end we had to > purchase a few licenses. If you have any questions along the way, I'd > be happy to try and answer them. > > *From:*[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *J- P > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 01, 2014 2:40 PM > *To:* [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > *Subject:* RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ? > > Thanks for the clarification, and I appreciate the feedback , for once > i actually interpreted something correclty from MS licensing. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ? > Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 19:28:21 +0000 > > That's not the way on-premises Exchange licensing works. It's per-user > or per-device. Just like Server CALs. It doesn't matter how many > mailboxes there are. Or how many AD accounts there are. > > *From:*[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Heaton, > Joseph@Wildlife > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 1, 2014 2:45 PM > *To:* '[email protected]' > *Subject:* RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ? > > Or, if there's only one person that any of those applies to, you could > set them up as DLs. not ideal, but it would work and not count against > licensing. > > *From:*[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Art DeKneef > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 01, 2014 11:15 AM > *To:* [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > *Subject:* RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ? > > What does the version of Exchange Product Use Rights they are using > say? These would be considered shared mailboxes? > > *From:*[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *J- P > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 1, 2014 10:51 AM > *To:* [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > *Subject:* RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ? > > So I started my audit on the client site with Exchange, and I noticed > that they created all mail accounts as user mailboxes; For instance, > warehouse@, jobs@ , dropbox@, voicemail@ etc... > > My question is will this be scrutinized and will MS say "it's a user > box, therefore it requires a CAL"? > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > From: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ? > Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:58:15 +0000 > > Doesn't matter. > Buried in the legalese of license agreements, MS states that they can > request this info at any time. And all associated costs are the > customer's responsibility. > > As long as you are not intentionally violating their licensing, they > are not out to punish/fine you - just get you legit. > > In any case, good luck. > > Source: went through this exact thing in '12. > > *From:*[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *J- P > *Sent:* Monday, March 31, 2014 12:38 PM > *To:* [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > *Subject:* RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ? > > One thing I'm sure the client will note is; > > "MS_Rep_Name" will contact Business_Name to discuss the internal self > audit, SHOULD YOUR ORG ELECT TO ENGAGE OUTSIDE RESOURCES O ASSIST YOU > IN THE INTERNAL AUDIT MICROSOFT NOT FUND THOSE RESOURCES" > > > > > Jean-Paul Natola > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ? > Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:28:03 +0000 > > Vs. doing it free? Absolutely. > > *From:*[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *J- P > *Sent:* Monday, March 31, 2014 12:05 PM > *To:* [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > *Subject:* RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ? > > Being a consultant to them, would you make this a billable task? > > > Jean-Paul Natola > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 11:56:23 -0400 > From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ? > > Be prepared for a hair pulling experience. When we did the "It's not > an audit, we're here to > > help you manage your licenses" they ended up doing lots of aggravating > things. Stuff like > > not wanting to accept the idea that OEM XP licenses on a bunch of old > HP machines were > > valid since neither our accounting or the reseller's records went back > far enough to be > > able to produce an invoice. I think they finally dropped that when we > came up with an > > email acknowledgement from the purchase and took pictures of a number > of the COA > > stickers on some of the boxes. Then there was them saying we needed to > purchase > > something like 20 cores of SQL Server 2012. We were running 2008r2, > properly licensed > > and even with the 2012 transition, we were still properly licensed. I > ended up quoting them > > the relevant sections from the SQL 2012 licensing document about a > dozen times before > > they got it. There was several other dumb things. > > I've heard that this is being driven from the sales side of Microsoft > as a revenue enhancement > > tool. I didn't see anything that would make me think that's not the case. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > Hi all > > One of my new clients called me and said they received a letter > via Fedex from MS, regarding licensing. In my 15+ years I have > never had that occur before , I asked them to email me the letter > so I can take a look at it. > > They only recently (within the last year) gone to Volume Licensing > for Windows/Exchange/outlook and TS cals/licensing, all desktops > are desktops are OEM licensed. > > They are also a small company (maybe 40 desktops ) and a handful > of servers. > > Has anyone on here ever been contacted in this manner? > > > Jean-Paul Natola > > -- > > Thanks, > > Joe Matuscak | Director of Technology > *Rohrer Corporation* | Office: 330-335-1541 > 717 Seville Road | Wadsworth, Ohio 44281 www.rohrer.com > <http://www.rohrer.com> | /A Better Package/ > > > . > -- Got your CryptoLocker prevention in place? http://www.thirdtier.net/2013/10/cryptolocker-prevention-kit-updates/ Only one more patching days of XP.... are you ready?
