That's not feasible (3rd party to manage MS licensing) for our org.  We're
~45 users.
I know it is my odd licensing pruchase[1] that triggered this.  I just now
have to get all of my ducks into a tight row.  They are pretty tight, but I
need to cross T's and dot my I's.  The timing of this is about the worst it
could be as I'm ramping up into a busy time for me, while my organization
as a whole will be gearing down.


[1] I have, from a predecessor, SBS Cals without a server followed by my
own purchases of some versions of office 2007, but not at a level
consistent with the # of SBS Cals, and the recent purchase of Exchange
Server 2010 CALs, but without the purchase of Exchange Server 2010, as I
have a Retail license of Exchange Server 2010 available via our Action Pack
subscription.  All these things together, from a stricly volume licensing
perspective looks odd, and I don't blame Microsoft for having a desire[2]
to investigate.
[2]I just blame them for investigating.  I thought this was what BSA was
for, to be honest.  *shrug* I'll deal, and we'll be fine.  I'll just make
sure I put sufficient effort into the process upfront so as to minimize
questions from them later.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Maglinger, Paul <[email protected]>wrote:

>  There are lawyers to handle legal stuff, doctors to handle medical
> stuff, and Sys Admins to handle server stuff.  We also have a 3rd party
> to manage our Micro$oft licensing and it is well worth it.****
>
> ** **
>
> -Paul  ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2012 5:36 PM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Sophisticated Phising attempt?****
>
> ** **
>
> Welcome to enterprise licensing...****
>
> ** **
>
> It doesn't get easy.  My last round looked similar to yours:  ****
>
> ** **
>
> -- Multiple players covering different products under different programs**
> **
>
> -- Multiple meetings to figure out who needed to handle what****
>
> -- Multiple processes for managing the invoicing (although the licences
> are in a single place)****
>
> ** **
>
> We saved quite a bit of money.****
>
> ** **
>
> I lost quite a bit of time.
> ****
>
> *ASB*****
>
> *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker*****
>
> *Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market…*****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Bob Fronk <[email protected]> wrote:****
>
> I just went through renewal and had contact from several consultants and
> “Microsoft” people (who are actually contractors).  Several claimed to have
> been “trying to contact me”, when I had no messages from them.****
>
>  ****
>
> In the past, I simply reviewed the information that our vendor sent me,
> increased or decreased license counts, added needed CALS or servers, and
> was done.  This time it took several conference calls with 5-6 people, some
> with MS, some consultants, plus my vendor (Dell).  Numerous emails to
> repeat information already given to someone else, two people wanting to
> provide “services” and wanting access to our system to run inventory
> tools.  It was a terrible experience and hope they get their act together.
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> BF****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:46 AM****
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues****
>
> *Subject:* Sophisticated Phising attempt?****
>
>  ****
>
> I received an email purportedly to be from Microsoft about a Software
> Asset Management (SAM) license review (headers looked like it came from MS,
> but I'm not an expert).  They indicated that they were trying to contact me
> this week (it was sent on Tuesday, and the *only* prior contact was a
> misdirected phone call into one of our director's voicemail[1]).****
>
>  ****
>
> It includes 2 PDFs, one appears to be a report with our name on it, VLPS
> Report, and it appears to have some correct information as to the
> customerID.  There's a deployment summary spreadsheet and a USA FAQ
> 2012.pdf.  Included in the email are some instructions, a suggestion to use
> the Microsoft Assessment and Planning Toolkit to help complete the tasks.
> It includes an email address for [email protected] or to contact
> another person at Microsoft.****
>
>  ****
>
> The person's display name for contacting me is foreign and has (Accenture)
> in parentheses.  It comes from a microsoft.com email address, however a
> reply back to that address generated an access denied NDR, but a reply to
> the other individual did not.  I haven't received an email (I also
> forwareded the email to the other address) in response, and I would have
> expected a faster turnaround.  The email address did contain a phone
> number, however that phone number, according to 800 notes, has been used in
> several scams in the past, trying to trick people into giving bank account
> information to receive a government grant.  A physical address is given,
> but it is the address to the Microsoft campus in Redmond.****
>
>  ****
>
> So, I cautiously viewed the documents on my iPhone.  One document, our
> apparent licensing report appears entirely legitimate.  I have had a weak
> password on the eopen site for a while, just hadn't bothered changing it.
> Second PDF (USA FAQ 2012[2]) is not viewable on my iPhone, it just displays
> whitespace, as does the excel file.  I'm going to take them to a sandboxed
> computer to view them later.  They also want information returned by April
> 16th.****
>
>  ****
>
> My other concern is some limited googling has suggested that this might be
> legitimate, that Microsoft has engaged in third parties to do this, and
> that there are variations of this process, but those could be cleverly
> built forums with shills indicating the process is legit, so I turn to this
> list for advice.  In the body of the email there aren't any instructions on
> where to send the information.  If the sender can only send email, having
> another address to receive this information seems to be necessary.****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> [1] The voicemail was extremely static laden and had several gaps in it.**
> **
>
> [2] That's a poorly named FAQ and about the only poorly phrased or worded
> item in the email.****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to [email protected]
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin****
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to [email protected]
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to [email protected]
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Reply via email to