Regarding the contact not answering emails, there should be a manager to contact on the case, too. I had an issue with my contact not responding to a voice mail after 48 hours. Called the manager, and never had a problem again. The call happened to be about getting an extension, too.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Steve Carter <[email protected]> wrote: > I got an extension (2 actually) a couple of years ago without a > problem. I just asked our contact for the extension. That might be a > problem for you if he's not answering your emails! > > Steve > > > On 18 Apr 2014, at 01:27, Sam Cayze <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
