Extension here too... no problem
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Carter Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 2:40 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] Revisit: Audit Letter from MS 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/licensi > ng-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? > > > > > > .
