RE: RBL's
You're one to talk. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Hummert Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:37 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Bravo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-97309;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Walsh, Ric Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Ok your spelling remark was rude to all of us. You following remark despite it's poor grammar seems to say that the rest of us are dumber that you. I'd have to say that it was ALL rude. Ric Walsh -Original Message- From: Walsh, Ric Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 10:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Ok what makes you such a wizard? Also add the word rude to that. Have you though of taking an anger management class? Ric Walsh -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 5:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject:RE: RBL's I'd guess 68% or more of mail admins are unable to even spell RBL. The majority of the remainder is unable to comprehend the implications of the functionality on their environment, whether they understand how it actually works or not. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:william;techsanctuary.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 4:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's That's a little harsh. (I love it when you're harsh...) Do you mean they are not aware of it, or they are unable to comprehend its functionality? William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-104116;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 1:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's 97.25% of mail admins are too stupid to understand what an RBL actually is/does. I for one hope they continue to rely on 3rd parties to provide the functionality, otherwise I'll likely have to join you in phoning stupid admins to tell them why RBL $foo is costing their company business. -- Chris Scharff, MVP MCSE EMS Sales Engineer MessageOne 512.652.4500 x-244 -Original Message- From: Darcy Adams [mailto:Darcy.Adams;gettyimages.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 3:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Still 3rd party. I was at a meeting at MS on Monday night and the current stance on that is that they're thinking about possibly including RBL support in a future release. Darcy -Original Message- From: Matt Natkin [mailto:mnatkin;natco-inc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 1:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RBL's Hey does exchange 2k have a rbl feature or is this 3rd party? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe:
RE: RBL's
You're one to talk. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Hummert Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Perhaps you should read your e-mails before you send them. Just cause you wrote something down and it sounds one way in your head doesn't meant that it will sound the same way on the other end. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-97309;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's I guess the #include humor.h module wasn't loaded for you this morning. I'd suggest that the spelling remark was only rude to a subset of the 32% of admins who actually could spell RBL and thus understood the barb. As a journalism major, with an English minor I am quite concerned about any grammatical errors I might have made in the comment you are referring to. Would you please be so kind as to point out my grammar errors so that I might endeavor to eliminate them from my future postings? Now, as to your point that my statement that of the 32% of mail administrators who can spell RBL many are unable to comprehend the implications of it: I've made more than 8,000 replies in various public forums in the last 12 months. I've read over 50,000 threads during that same period. It's been a relatively slow year for me, but even if we take those low water numbers back 4 years it's still a fairly substantial number of administrators and posts that I've encountered. Based on that vast experience with and exposure to mail administrators around the world, I find it highly likely that 16% or more of mail administrators don't understand fully the implications of the RBL technology they are using and or advocating. It has nothing to do with being smart or dumb. It has to do with being knowledgeable about a particular issue or technology. My comments were not directed at any particular individual user on this list and were more accurately a diatribe against the technology than those who choose to implement it. I'm sorry you chose to misinterpret my comments. -Original Message- From: Walsh, Ric [mailto:Walshr;national-citymortgage.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Ok your spelling remark was rude to all of us. You following remark despite it's poor grammar seems to say that the rest of us are dumber that you. I'd have to say that it was ALL rude. Ric Walsh -Original Message- From: Walsh, Ric Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 10:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject:RE: RBL's Ok what makes you such a wizard? Also add the word rude to that. Have you though of taking an anger management class? Ric Walsh -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 5:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's I'd guess 68% or more of mail admins are unable to even spell RBL. The majority of the remainder is unable to comprehend the implications of the functionality on their environment, whether they understand how it actually works or not. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:william;techsanctuary.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 4:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's That's a little harsh. (I love it when you're harsh...) Do you mean they are not aware of it, or they are unable to comprehend its functionality? William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-104116;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 1:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's 97.25% of mail admins are too stupid to understand what an RBL actually is/does. I for one hope they continue to rely on 3rd parties to provide the functionality, otherwise I'll likely have to join you in phoning stupid admins to tell them why RBL $foo is costing their company business. -- Chris Scharff, MVP MCSE EMS Sales Engineer MessageOne 512.652.4500 x-244 -Original Message- From: Darcy Adams [mailto:Darcy.Adams;gettyimages.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 3:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Still 3rd party. I was at a meeting at MS on Monday night and the current stance on that is that they're thinking about possibly including RBL support in a future release. Darcy -Original Message- From: Matt Natkin
RE: RBL's
Must be pretty effective at blocking Spam! Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Blunt, James H (Jim) Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Here's what SamSpade.org says about the XBL: The XBL has been removed for a number of reasons. 1) It's run by a total kook. 2) Nobody uses it. 3) It appears to list almost the entire Internet. LOL -Original Message- From: B. van Ouwerkerk [mailto:ouwerkerk92;zonnet.nl] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's I just re-read his original posting. I really don't understand why he's called rude. I think he should have added that some RBL's don't even know what an RBL is supposed to do. And they're clueless about the damage they can do when not operated in The_Right_Way. Spews is a good example of a bad RBL. I've seen RBL's (including Spews and XBL) which are blocking several /24 because one IP belongs to a spammer. Mr Scharff is an optimist. Since every idiot is allowed to run a mailserver these days (and MS makes it very easy to do so) I think 98,9% is closer then the 97,25% he talked about. I don't have any specific person in mind.. so nobody should feel insulted.. If someone does.. well.. then it seems that person is just one of these idiots :-) Remember this is a tech list, not one that discusses about grammar.. In my experience it's not always a good idea to be to sensitive on lists like these. Have fun, --B. http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html At 15:18 4-11-02 -0800, you wrote: Perhaps you should read your e-mails before you send them. Just cause you wrote something down and it sounds one way in your head doesn't meant that it will sound the same way on the other end. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-97309;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's I guess the #include humor.h module wasn't loaded for you this morning. I'd suggest that the spelling remark was only rude to a subset of the 32% of admins who actually could spell RBL and thus understood the barb. As a journalism major, with an English minor I am quite concerned about any grammatical errors I might have made in the comment you are referring to. Would you please be so kind as to point out my grammar errors so that I might endeavor to eliminate them from my future postings? Now, as to your point that my statement that of the 32% of mail administrators who can spell RBL many are unable to comprehend the implications of it: I've made more than 8,000 replies in various public forums in the last 12 months. I've read over 50,000 threads during that same period. It's been a relatively slow year for me, but even if we take those low water numbers back 4 years it's still a fairly substantial number of administrators and posts that I've encountered. Based on that vast experience with and exposure to mail administrators around the world, I find it highly likely that 16% or more of mail administrators don't understand fully the implications of the RBL technology they are using and or advocating. It has nothing to do with being smart or dumb. It has to do with being knowledgeable about a particular issue or technology. My comments were not directed at any particular individual user on this list and were more accurately a diatribe against the technology than those who choose to implement it. I'm sorry you chose to misinterpret my comments. -Original Message- From: Walsh, Ric [mailto:Walshr;national-citymortgage.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Ok your spelling remark was rude to all of us. You following remark despite it's poor grammar seems to say that the rest of us are dumber that you. I'd have to say that it was ALL rude. Ric Walsh -Original Message- From: Walsh, Ric Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 10:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject:RE: RBL's Ok what makes you such a wizard? Also add the word rude to that. Have you though of taking an anger management class? Ric Walsh -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 5:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's I'd guess 68% or more of mail admins are unable to even spell RBL. The majority of the remainder is unable to comprehend the implications of the functionality on their environment, whether they understand how it actually works or not. -Original Message- From:
RE: RBL's
It's just as likely that a dept. with predominant females could sue for fifteen million for sexual harassment in the fact the company with the ten million dollar deal didn't take reasonable steps to protect them from this spam. This is even greater nonsense than the argument you don't buy. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Finch Brett Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's I've watched this thread for a while. I don't buy the argument that a ten million deal will fail because of a bounced email via RBL. It's just as likely that a dept. with predominant females could sue for fifteen million for sexual harassment in the fact the company with the ten million dollar deal didn't take reasonable steps to protect them from this spam. There also seems to be no argument about the value of email in the workplace and that a business may find they loose a ten thousand dollar deal but save fifteen thousand in the fact their people are actually doing what they were hired to do (as mentioned in other posts bandwidth costs, storage costs as well). As for the per client configuration, that works until they start adding their contacts to the junk list or they log into a Terminal Server or via wireless with a PDA. We also don't hire people based on their skills to manage their email. Finding a moderate RBL with reasonable rules and sending a nice e-mail back to a would be spammer seems to work as well as anything. -Original Message- From: Matt Natkin [mailto:mnatkin;natco-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:49 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Very true..We have hosted exchange for business and we get the sh-t spammed out of us. But we do not block any email! That may change as our customers are complaining bitterly. The best solution we would like is a filter on the client side and not the server side. MacAfee spam kill product looks nice but I do not know if it can talk to Exchange server. (not POP) I just felt we started something ugly on this list!!:) Wanted to clarify why we were interested. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's And in general, the business needs of a firm providing free web based e-mail, vs. the business needs of a Fortune 500 company are a tad different. So are the usage patterns and a host of other factors. My only comment about RBLs as it related to your question (not being defensive, just reiterating for those who might have lost track) was that I hoped Microsoft would not integrate RBL functionality directly into the Exchange product because I felt that such solutions were best left to 3rd party vendors... and then proceeded to mention a couple of reasons why I thought this to be true. -Original Message- From: Matt Natkin [mailto:mnatkin;natco-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions I originally questioned about RBL's for exchange because we host a large .com whose main stay of business is free web based email. They have 100k plus users and get spammed to death. We have content filtering tools, we can blacklist known spammers, and we can even shut down ip's at the router. They still get spammed to death hurting their service. Customers complain. The owner of this .com asked us to use spamcop. Since enlisting spam cop 100's of thousands emails are now refused a day!! All of the users were notified of the use of spamcop and were told to report any emails that should have gotten thru. It has been 3 months now and one reported email that should have gotten thru did not. Our customer is happy, his users are happy and we spend a lot less time tracking spammers. Our servers are happy, our sans are happy, I'm happy. Oh our bandwidth is happy also!! -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:esojka;NBME.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's You following remark ... Seems to say ? -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:william;techsanctuary.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's depsite it's poor grammar ? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-104116;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Walsh, Ric Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Ok your spelling remark was rude to all of us. You following remark despite it's poor grammar seems to say that the rest of us are dumber that you. I'd have to say that it was ALL rude. Ric Walsh -Original
RE: Exchange 2000 and GC
Yikes! Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of kanee Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 5:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 and GC The way to do it is have a cisco local redirector in front of your 2 GC and then do a load balancing rule on the cisco local redirector to send all traffic to gc1 untill processor threshold reaches 80% and then after 80% to send traffic to GC2 this way gc1 will answer all requests until its processor threshold reaches 80% and then shift load to gc2. -Original Message- From: Petri [mailto:omatesti;jippii.fi] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 12:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange 2000 and GC Hi Folks, I have plans to create almost a big Exchange 2000 environment. And I have some open question where I need more a real life answers than MS-white papers. At first I will create own AD site for Exchange 2000, so users logons will go other sites. Also I thought to install GCs on the same servers than Exchanges are. I haven't seen any good answers we should I not to do this. Backup/recovery might be one and if I have problems with GC, but still... But if I use GCs on the same server, then I might have better performance from GC, less users and only one Exchange per GC. Maybe I need one server more to decrease user counts on one server, but it should not be so big. So I don't need so much hardware. And now it is very easy to dedicate one GC per one Exchange 2000 servers. If I use separated GC servers: MS recommends using one CPU in GC against four Exchange servers, which have one CPU. This sounds like no matter how many users we will have in Exchange servers ? If I have eight servers where are 10 users in each one. Do I still need two GC servers (assuming that servers are one CPU servers). Is here anyone who have more than ~3500 users per server which is not clustered ? May I hear any comments from you, how it really works ? How often you are rebooting your servers or unmounting databases ? Was it SLA your only argument when you planned storage groups and databases ? best regards .-Pepi-. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: mssdmn.exe using high cpu
I'm bummed. I used to be the RUDE GUY. Guess I'm going to have to work harder. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 4:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: mssdmn.exe using high cpu Wilson: I have suffered from this very issue, and that was well before I had ANY public folders (no offense Ed). Although I do have full-text indexing turned on, and someone, I think the RUDE GUY told me I should try turning OFF the Full Indexing, re-booting the server, when it's backup, go ahead and turn on Full-text Indexing and reboot again. I can't remember why the RUDE GUY said this, as I was two beers and a few percocets on my way to a good time, but the RUDE GUY did mention that he'd seen or heard of this before, and he'd heard this fix working. Of course, I haven't tried this yet, as I have yet to have a free Saturday since returning from MEC, although I will try, otherwise the RUDE GUY just might come up to KC and kick my arse :) Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA Internet/WAN Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Varghese, Wilson [mailto:Wilson.Varghese;KMV.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 4:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: mssdmn.exe using high cpu So you think this is caused by public folder indexing and not mailboxs? Wilson -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 7:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject:RE: mssdmn.exe using high cpu Have you configured indexing? If you're using that, you should have your public folders on a dedicated server if you're seeing high CPU load. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Varghese, Wilson Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 4:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: mssdmn.exe using high cpu Exchange 2k, sp2, 2gigs ram, 1cpu. (in a native mode child domain) Mssdmn.exe is using high CPU, and when I terminal serviced into the server to see why mail was running so slow, I saw two instances of mssdmn.exe. This has happened before and it goes away after an hour but during that hour, client access to mail and searches are extremely slow. I checked Google and support.Microsoft.com but only hits were for SQL Server indexing issue. Anyone know of any issues with indexing on an exchange 2k server? Any hints would be helpful before I end up calling PSS. Thanks in advance. Wilson _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of John Matteson Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 7:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Which book would you recommend that sucks less? John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 5:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox That book sucks. -Original Message- From: Newsgroups [mailto:Newsgroups;henwoodenergy.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 3:54 PM To: Exchange Discussions I am looking at the Microsoft Exchange 2000 Administrator's Companion and on page 275 it shows I can select another public folder as default but I don't see that on my ESM. Any ideas? Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Appointments/Personal Folders
It always amazes me that people spend all this money on Exchange Server and the complications of implementing it and then send all the mail to PST files. Any old cheezy system like Netscape Mail can do that! Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of John Matteson Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 7:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Appointments/Personal Folders No. You will update Free/busy times on the server, but that's all. If you want other users to see WHY you are busy, then the calendar must be on the server, which means no .PST for you! Why would you want to deliver to a PST in the first place? John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: McCready, Robert [mailto:Robert.McCready;DPLINC.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 10:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Appointments/Personal Folders Curses. Lost my replies from Friday. Please forgive the resend. Exchange 5.5, NT 4.0, Outlook 98. If E-mail is setup to deliver to a personal folder, rather than the Inbox, and an appointment is requested, that appointment will appear on the PF calendar. Is there any way to have mail delivered to a PF, but still have appointments placed on the regular calendar? Thanks. Robert _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: field is empty
Buy an add-on product. But in treating a rather uncommon symptom it would be a rather ineffective Spam filter. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Exchange List Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:01 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: field is empty Some users are getting mails from the Internet in which To: field is empty, or doing BCC: how can I block such kind of mails. Irf. -Original Message- From: Dale Geoffrey Edwards [mailto:Dale.Edwards;AmericanTower.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 7:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: field is empty If I understand you correctly, which I believe I am a little confused, if you put all the names in the BCC field, no other person will know that someone got the same message. Is this what you are loosing for? Gèoff... -Original Message- From: Exchange List [mailto:exchangelist;ubl.com.pk] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: To: field is empty Is their a way that we block emails that does not contain any to header in To: and yet still managed to deliver to our users ? Thanks Regards. Irfan Malik. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RBL's
Can you say 'risk management'. If someone can drive up to a window, order a coffee then take the lid off, drive over a speed bump and sue someone else, anything is possible :) -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 21:20 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's I've never heard of a single instance where a lawsuit was initiated against an organization based on incoming *spam*. Can you point to one? I can point to deals which didn't get done because of RBLs which resulted in real monetary loss, which would seem to make one more likely than the other unless you can point to a court case I'm not aware of. Matt's client side could technically be much different from a normal organization since his firm provides hosting to businesses (clients) who have their own users (another type of client). There are plenty of examples of server based filtering based on individual user settings which could potentially meet his objective and address your objection. Most of those solutions are poorly done IMNSHO. RBLs in general aren't content filtering solutions, they are connection filtering solutions. While they may at some level achieve similar results, their objectives are actually quite different. -Original Message- From: Finch Brett [mailto:brett.finch;hrs.ualberta.ca] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 4:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions I've watched this thread for a while. I don't buy the argument that a ten million deal will fail because of a bounced email via RBL. It's just as likely that a dept. with predominant females could sue for fifteen million for sexual harassment in the fact the company with the ten million dollar deal didn't take reasonable steps to protect them from this spam. There also seems to be no argument about the value of email in the workplace and that a business may find they loose a ten thousand dollar deal but save fifteen thousand in the fact their people are actually doing what they were hired to do (as mentioned in other posts bandwidth costs, storage costs as well). As for the per client configuration, that works until they start adding their contacts to the junk list or they log into a Terminal Server or via wireless with a PDA. We also don't hire people based on their skills to manage their email. Finding a moderate RBL with reasonable rules and sending a nice e-mail back to a would be spammer seems to work as well as anything. -Original Message- From: Matt Natkin [mailto:mnatkin;natco-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:49 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Very true..We have hosted exchange for business and we get the sh-t spammed out of us. But we do not block any email! That may change as our customers are complaining bitterly. The best solution we would like is a filter on the client side and not the server side. MacAfee spam kill product looks nice but I do not know if it can talk to Exchange server. (not POP) I just felt we started something ugly on this list!!:) Wanted to clarify why we were interested. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's And in general, the business needs of a firm providing free web based e-mail, vs. the business needs of a Fortune 500 company are a tad different. So are the usage patterns and a host of other factors. My only comment about RBLs as it related to your question (not being defensive, just reiterating for those who might have lost track) was that I hoped Microsoft would not integrate RBL functionality directly into the Exchange product because I felt that such solutions were best left to 3rd party vendors... and then proceeded to mention a couple of reasons why I thought this to be true. -Original Message- From: Matt Natkin [mailto:mnatkin;natco-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions I originally questioned about RBL's for exchange because we host a large .com whose main stay of business is free web based email. They have 100k plus users and get spammed to death. We have content filtering tools, we can blacklist known spammers, and we can even shut down ip's at the router. They still get spammed to death hurting their service. Customers complain. The owner of this .com asked us to use spamcop. Since enlisting spam cop 100's of thousands emails are now refused a day!! All of the users were notified of the use of spamcop and were told to report any emails that should have gotten thru. It has been 3 months now and one reported email that should have gotten thru did not. Our customer is happy, his users are happy and we spend a lot less time tracking spammers. Our servers are happy, our sans are happy, I'm happy. Oh our bandwidth
RE: Quick SMTP cluster question
Logic would dictate that it can, otherwise you would need a dedicated server for that only. That sounds silly. I have however not tested this in real life. frantically looking in some documentation Sander -Original Message- From: Kelley, Jason [mailto:jwkelley;qualcomm.com] Sent: 06 November 2002 05:46 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Quick SMTP cluster question Can an exchange 2000 active/passive cluster host an SMTP connector or would the SMTP connector have to reside on a dedicated bridgehead server? Most of the articles I find say that SMTP protocol is supported on a cluster but I do not know if the SMTP connector is supported. Thanks - Jason _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: field is empty
But at least it contains a header in To: field, what about the mails which does not contain headers. irf -Original Message- From: Stephen Grant [mailto:grant;fsna.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 8:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: field is empty If you block BCC: ( I dont know if you can) You will no longer receive this list's emails. They are sent using BCC. Steve -Original Message- From: Exchange List [mailto:exchangelist;ubl.com.pk] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: field is empty Some users are getting mails from the Internet in which To: field is empty, or doing BCC: how can I block such kind of mails. Irf. -Original Message- From: Dale Geoffrey Edwards [mailto:Dale.Edwards;AmericanTower.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 7:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: field is empty If I understand you correctly, which I believe I am a little confused, if you put all the names in the BCC field, no other person will know that someone got the same message. Is this what you are loosing for? Gèoff... -Original Message- From: Exchange List [mailto:exchangelist;ubl.com.pk] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: To: field is empty Is their a way that we block emails that does not contain any to header in To: and yet still managed to deliver to our users ? Thanks Regards. Irfan Malik. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Scripting Exchange 2000
No, cluster installs are not scriptable if I remember correctly. Standalone installs are scriptable - there's an option on the setup program to cause it to simulate the install and capture the setup information. === Andy Webb[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.swinc.com Simpler-Webb, Inc. Austin, TX512-322-0071 === ---Original Message- From: Robert Jan Duyverman [mailto:r.duyverman;pink.nl] Posted At: Thursday, October 31, 2002 7:22 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: Scripting Exchange 2000 Subject: Scripting Exchange 2000 Hi, Is it possible to script the installation and configuration of an Exchange 2000 server on MSCS? Any tips, tricks or examples? Thanks in advance, Robert _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outlook 2002 contacts
Thanks for that info, Greg -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: 05 November 2002 18:32 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Outlook 2002 contacts If you are talking about looking at the public folder, switch to Address Card view OR use View | Current View | Customize Current View and add the Email field. If you are talking about selecting from the Address Book, then if you are using Outlook 2000 and these are SMTP addresses, then the Outlook address book by default shows the display name and SMTP email address. I am not aware of any way to show Company name in the address book. This is because Outlook's address book is weak and inflexible. The weakness and inflexibility of Outlook's address book dates all the way back to the Exchange client. Essentially, people have been complaining about this since day 1 with the Exchange client and Microsoft still has not done anything to improve it. So, don't expect it to change any time soon. Dear All, We have several public folders used as address books User are complaining that they only get to see the name of the contact, and not the associated email address, or their company. (sounds like an MCP question) Is there a way of automatically changing the contacts to display the name as well as the email address? And/or the company field? Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using a PST for 'overflow'
I was having a discussion with someone the other day and he mentioned this phrase in passing, that they used PST files when user mailboxes became full I didn't dwell on this as we were talking about something else, but can anyone suggest what he may have meant? We are now enforcing stricter limits on mailbox size and would be interested in something like this. For ongoing maintenance, is Outlooks Autoarchiving a viable solution? i.e. does this move mail out of the server information store and into a PST in the users local profile? Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Using a PST for 'overflow'
I have a couple of users who do the same thing. They don't want to delete old mail (for whatever reason) and I can't keep extending their mailbox sizes. So they move to PST. Be aware of the risks here! Make a periodic backup of that PST as hard drives are prone to failure. Sander -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: 06 November 2002 12:45 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Using a PST for 'overflow' I was having a discussion with someone the other day and he mentioned this phrase in passing, that they used PST files when user mailboxes became full I didn't dwell on this as we were talking about something else, but can anyone suggest what he may have meant? We are now enforcing stricter limits on mailbox size and would be interested in something like this. For ongoing maintenance, is Outlooks Autoarchiving a viable solution? i.e. does this move mail out of the server information store and into a PST in the users local profile? Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Using a PST for 'overflow'
I was having a discussion with someone the other day and he mentioned this phrase in passing, that they used PST files when user mailboxes became full Probably auto-archiving, though it possible he menat using File/Export to a .pst, then deleting the contents of the account. I didn't dwell on this as we were talking about something else, but can anyone suggest what he may have meant? We are now enforcing stricter limits on mailbox size and would be interested in something like this. For ongoing maintenance, is Outlooks Autoarchiving a viable solution? i.e. does this move mail out of the server information store and into a PST in the users local profile? There are good reasons to avoid using .pst files. Notably, that they can get unstable (especially 1Gb) and you are saving the data off of your Exchange server, so you won't know where it is when you have to perform an emergency backup. (See the FAQ for more reasons why pst = BAD) It sounds to me that you need to up the storage limits for particular users, which - from a technical, rather than a political, perspective - probably isn't much of an issue. However, I'd advise using some kind of charging mechanism - if a user wants extra storage they have to pay for it. This should hopefully encourage your users to perform some rudimentary housekeeping and keep the number of claimants down to legitimate levels. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Using a PST for 'overflow'
No, just inform them of the 'No PST Backup' policy. I don't back up PSTs. Period. Either its in their mailbox or it is not that important. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Sander Van Butzelaar Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 05:49 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' I have a couple of users who do the same thing. They don't want to delete old mail (for whatever reason) and I can't keep extending their mailbox sizes. So they move to PST. Be aware of the risks here! Make a periodic backup of that PST as hard drives are prone to failure. Sander -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: 06 November 2002 12:45 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Using a PST for 'overflow' I was having a discussion with someone the other day and he mentioned this phrase in passing, that they used PST files when user mailboxes became full I didn't dwell on this as we were talking about something else, but can anyone suggest what he may have meant? We are now enforcing stricter limits on mailbox size and would be interested in something like this. For ongoing maintenance, is Outlooks Autoarchiving a viable solution? i.e. does this move mail out of the server information store and into a PST in the users local profile? Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Using a PST for 'overflow'
No, just inform them of the 'No PST Backup' policy. I don't back up PSTs. Period. Either its in their mailbox or it is not that important. Q258277 describes a way to turn off export to .pst files. It's a reg hack called DisablePst _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Using a PST for 'overflow'
Why the hard line approach? I never said I made the backup of the PST, that's why one has a facilities department...I also didn't say that I found that mail particularly important, the user wants to keep it, so why not let him/her? They know not to come to me regarding items in PST files. Give the user a bit of slack here David. Sander -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: 06 November 2002 01:56 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' No, just inform them of the 'No PST Backup' policy. I don't back up PSTs. Period. Either its in their mailbox or it is not that important. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Sander Van Butzelaar Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 05:49 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' I have a couple of users who do the same thing. They don't want to delete old mail (for whatever reason) and I can't keep extending their mailbox sizes. So they move to PST. Be aware of the risks here! Make a periodic backup of that PST as hard drives are prone to failure. Sander -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: 06 November 2002 12:45 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Using a PST for 'overflow' I was having a discussion with someone the other day and he mentioned this phrase in passing, that they used PST files when user mailboxes became full I didn't dwell on this as we were talking about something else, but can anyone suggest what he may have meant? We are now enforcing stricter limits on mailbox size and would be interested in something like this. For ongoing maintenance, is Outlooks Autoarchiving a viable solution? i.e. does this move mail out of the server information store and into a PST in the users local profile? Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Using a PST for 'overflow'
I know several people who use autoarchiving to handle stuff they no longer use. Much better than keeping email from three and four years ago. Talk about packrats. You'd think the world was going to end if they had to actually delete email that old. Nate -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 4:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Using a PST for 'overflow' I was having a discussion with someone the other day and he mentioned this phrase in passing, that they used PST files when user mailboxes became full I didn't dwell on this as we were talking about something else, but can anyone suggest what he may have meant? We are now enforcing stricter limits on mailbox size and would be interested in something like this. For ongoing maintenance, is Outlooks Autoarchiving a viable solution? i.e. does this move mail out of the server information store and into a PST in the users local profile? Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RBL's
IMHO filtering should be done server-side. All mail send to my own company has to pass through several filters before it hits any real mailbox. About 98% of all spam and virusses are caught. The mail that didn't make it is inspected manually. Blocking based on domainname is a bad idea. Wouldn't be the first time someone sets the FROM to any valid domainname that has nothing to do with the spammer. -- B. At 13:48 5-11-02 -0500, you wrote: Very true..We have hosted exchange for business and we get the sh-t spammed out of us. But we do not block any email! That may change as our customers are complaining bitterly. The best solution we would like is a filter on the client side and not the server side. MacAfee spam kill product looks nice but I do not know if it can talk to Exchange server. (not POP) I just felt we started something ugly on this list!!:) Wanted to clarify why we were interested. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's And in general, the business needs of a firm providing free web based e-mail, vs. the business needs of a Fortune 500 company are a tad different. So are the usage patterns and a host of other factors. My only comment about RBLs as it related to your question (not being defensive, just reiterating for those who might have lost track) was that I hoped Microsoft would not integrate RBL functionality directly into the Exchange product because I felt that such solutions were best left to 3rd party vendors... and then proceeded to mention a couple of reasons why I thought this to be true. -Original Message- From: Matt Natkin [mailto:mnatkin;natco-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions I originally questioned about RBL's for exchange because we host a large .com whose main stay of business is free web based email. They have 100k plus users and get spammed to death. We have content filtering tools, we can blacklist known spammers, and we can even shut down ip's at the router. They still get spammed to death hurting their service. Customers complain. The owner of this .com asked us to use spamcop. Since enlisting spam cop 100's of thousands emails are now refused a day!! All of the users were notified of the use of spamcop and were told to report any emails that should have gotten thru. It has been 3 months now and one reported email that should have gotten thru did not. Our customer is happy, his users are happy and we spend a lot less time tracking spammers. Our servers are happy, our sans are happy, I'm happy. Oh our bandwidth is happy also!! -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:esojka;NBME.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's You following remark ... Seems to say ? -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:william;techsanctuary.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's depsite it's poor grammar ? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-104116;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Walsh, Ric Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Ok your spelling remark was rude to all of us. You following remark despite it's poor grammar seems to say that the rest of us are dumber that you. I'd have to say that it was ALL rude. Ric Walsh -Original Message- From: Walsh, Ric Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 10:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Ok what makes you such a wizard? Also add the word rude to that. Have you though of taking an anger management class? Ric Walsh _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives:
RE: Using a PST for 'overflow'
I do. They don't know they can save them up on their home folder. They know I don't back up the workstations, but most think that you only can save PSTs on local drives ;) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Sander Van Butzelaar Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 07:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' Why the hard line approach? I never said I made the backup of the PST, that's why one has a facilities department...I also didn't say that I found that mail particularly important, the user wants to keep it, so why not let him/her? They know not to come to me regarding items in PST files. Give the user a bit of slack here David. Sander -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: 06 November 2002 01:56 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' No, just inform them of the 'No PST Backup' policy. I don't back up PSTs. Period. Either its in their mailbox or it is not that important. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Sander Van Butzelaar Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 05:49 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' I have a couple of users who do the same thing. They don't want to delete old mail (for whatever reason) and I can't keep extending their mailbox sizes. So they move to PST. Be aware of the risks here! Make a periodic backup of that PST as hard drives are prone to failure. Sander -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: 06 November 2002 12:45 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Using a PST for 'overflow' I was having a discussion with someone the other day and he mentioned this phrase in passing, that they used PST files when user mailboxes became full I didn't dwell on this as we were talking about something else, but can anyone suggest what he may have meant? We are now enforcing stricter limits on mailbox size and would be interested in something like this. For ongoing maintenance, is Outlooks Autoarchiving a viable solution? i.e. does this move mail out of the server information store and into a PST in the users local profile? Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Quick SMTP cluster question
Exchange 2000 SMTP connector is not a physical entity, it does not physically reside anywhere. -Original Message- From: Kelley, Jason [mailto:jwkelley;qualcomm.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Quick SMTP cluster question Can an exchange 2000 active/passive cluster host an SMTP connector or would the SMTP connector have to reside on a dedicated bridgehead server? Most of the articles I find say that SMTP protocol is supported on a cluster but I do not know if the SMTP connector is supported. Thanks - Jason _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Instant Messaging Troubleshooting
Some people insist on using e-mail as IM and get very p-off when their message does not get to its destination within a millisecond. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 5:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Instant Messaging Troubleshooting So IM is vile and inhuman technology, but email isn't? :) I have to say, you've always got a different perspective on things, Craig! I have to admit that if you have the time, I would personally LOVE to hear your thoughts on this subject. You always had good insights on UM and other technologies back in the day. I know it is probably off topic for the list, but this list generates so much noise anyway... IM is vile and inhuman technology, especially in the hands of carriers and others with capitalist motives; but it can also move us back toward 19th century attitudes about employee-management relations. We should launch a campaign to stamp it out. I just thought I'd throw that out there. -Original Message- From: Mark Harford [mailto:mark.harford;bbc.co.uk] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 9:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Instant Messaging Troubleshooting So gold is also the server name? I'm not familiar with IM on non-default virtual servers so the only other troubleshooting step I can suggest is to try signing in using the actual IM address as shown in ADUC on your account. Presumably [EMAIL PROTECTED]? Mark -Original Message- From: Jonathan [mailto:jwright;spectore.com] Sent: 04 November 2002 17:07 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Instant Messaging Troubleshooting Thanks for your reply. I am using [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the IM logon. My DNS is setup with the SRV record under the _tcp folder listed as: rvp service location [0][0][80] gold.domain.com A Host record for the server (which has IM, E2K, IIS running on it) was dynamically added to the DNS: gold A 192.168.xxx.xxx I think I should also mention that our web service and Exchange is on the same server gold.domain.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system, do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 issues
G-d do you need a consulting engagement! I know someone in San Diego who could spend a couple days with you on this if you really need the help. Anyway, let me see if I can sort this out: EC -x400- Irvine (cost 1) EC -x400- SD (cost 1) Irvine -x400- SD (cost 100) EC -IMC (cost 1?) Irvine -IMC (Cost 99) Now, a few things to keep in mind. In the grand scheme of Ex5.5 routing, cost is the 7th (of 7) factors used for routing decisions, and therefore doesn't play as much of a role in routing as it should. However, make sure that you've set the cost correctly at both ends, and make sure that you're not setting the option to only use least cost routes. Now - another question. You bought this company. Did you migrate them to the same Org as your company, or are they set up as a separate org name? If they are different orgs, what are the address space entries on your x.400 and IMS with regards to the other company's domains? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Not really an option. The scenario is this: The one remote server is in San Diego that used to be connected to the other remote server in Irvine,CA by an X.400 connector over a T1. The only server that was connected to the hub server on the E.Coast was the one in Irvine. There was an X.400 connector between SD and Irvine, then an X.400 connector to the EC. There is now an separate X.400 connector from SD and Irvine to the hub server. The Irvine server has an IMC that was used by the old company (that was bought by us). The cost on the connectors to the hub server from each site is set to 1. The old connector from SD to Irvine has a cost of 100. The IMC on Irvine is set to 99. I would like to remove the old connector from SD-Irvine but, the connectors from each remote site to the hub server is sooo erratic that I have mail that routes from SD-Irvine-out the IMC in Irvine then back to the hub server on the E. Coast through the corporate IMC. There is the jist of what I am going through. It is driving me nuts trying to troubleshoot this. Please help. Josh -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues What is it about your routing table that is causing the looping messages? Is it possible for you to remove redundant routes, even just one or two, to see what happens? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Yes, the queues back up for an hour or so then flush clean in a 2 minute span once the X.400 connection is successful. However, due to the way the routing table is, I have messages flowing in a roundabout fashion. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues IIRC, you're getting exceeded the maximum number of associations which usually indicates that the total number of connections and associations, which I believe is 9 associations and 10 connects per association. Are you sure there aren't any looping messages, or a butload of public folder replication traffic? Is there anything in the MTA queue? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has available and again, it did not correct the situation. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if you have that handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is called control blocks. -- Roger D.
RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox
My god that was funny.. LMAO :-) -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:08 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of John Matteson Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 7:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Which book would you recommend that sucks less? John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 5:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox That book sucks. -Original Message- From: Newsgroups [mailto:Newsgroups;henwoodenergy.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 3:54 PM To: Exchange Discussions I am looking at the Microsoft Exchange 2000 Administrator's Companion and on page 275 it shows I can select another public folder as default but I don't see that on my ESM. Any ideas? Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Import Address list
I have personal contacts located in my Outlook XP that I would like to import into Exchange 2000. What are the possibe ways of doing this? J _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Postmaster reply address
Exchange2k SP3 I am having trouble trying to figure out how to change the postmaster reply address on NDRs sent to internet users. Is it possible? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Using a PST for 'overflow'
We've been forced into restricting mailboxes as everyones being moved to a central server. Most users are having no problems getting their mailboxes down to 25-50mb, some much lower, a handful much higher. I'm finding it easiest to set some limits on the IS, then override that on individual mailboxes, as required, the MD for instance has a 500mb mailbox, after 2 CD's worth of archiving :-O What I've been saying to users is delete everything you can, anything older than 2 months that you need to keep put into a subfolder, then I go round and export these folders to PSTs, and dump them in their user folders on their local file servers, meaning they're included in the backups on their local servers, but the backup and disk space burden is removed from the Exchange server. I test the PSTs before deleting the originals, but I've seen nothing bigger than about 4-500mb. With enforced limits user will have to keep things in order, and we'll have to look at ongoing archiving in the method described above. 99% aren't aware of PST's, which is probably a good thing, though its added to my workload -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: 06 November 2002 13:01 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' I do. They don't know they can save them up on their home folder. They know I don't back up the workstations, but most think that you only can save PSTs on local drives ;) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Sander Van Butzelaar Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 07:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' Why the hard line approach? I never said I made the backup of the PST, that's why one has a facilities department...I also didn't say that I found that mail particularly important, the user wants to keep it, so why not let him/her? They know not to come to me regarding items in PST files. Give the user a bit of slack here David. Sander -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: 06 November 2002 01:56 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' No, just inform them of the 'No PST Backup' policy. I don't back up PSTs. Period. Either its in their mailbox or it is not that important. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Sander Van Butzelaar Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 05:49 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' I have a couple of users who do the same thing. They don't want to delete old mail (for whatever reason) and I can't keep extending their mailbox sizes. So they move to PST. Be aware of the risks here! Make a periodic backup of that PST as hard drives are prone to failure. Sander -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: 06 November 2002 12:45 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Using a PST for 'overflow' I was having a discussion with someone the other day and he mentioned this phrase in passing, that they used PST files when user mailboxes became full I didn't dwell on this as we were talking about something else, but can anyone suggest what he may have meant? We are now enforcing stricter limits on mailbox size and would be interested in something like this. For ongoing maintenance, is Outlooks Autoarchiving a viable solution? i.e. does this move mail out of the server information store and into a PST in the users local profile? Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives:
RE: Import Address list
From Outlook. File, Import/Export -Original Message- From: Jonathan [mailto:jwright;spectore.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 6:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Import Address list I have personal contacts located in my Outlook XP that I would like to import into Exchange 2000. What are the possibe ways of doing this? J _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server
Here's my take: A quick peek a CDW shows SBS at $1277 http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.asp?EDC=274287. Microsoft is offering a $500 rebate if you can read the SBS sales literature and answer 20 some-odd questions. That puts the price at $777. I'm not familiar with the MCSP program, so I cannot comment on that. You are also forgetting about Exchange CALS at $70 each. You are correct in that growing past SBS is somewhat painful (I might argue with the 10-20 times more expensive. Exmerging 50 mailboxes is not that painful...), but I would maintain that if a company finds themselves outgrowing SBS, then it should not have been put in in the first place. Yes, Linux is a viable option for small companies (big ones, too). It does have some drawbacks, though. 1. Support. Finding a local consultant to support a Linux system is going to be harder than finding someone to support Microsoft products. 2. Third-party applications. Going Linux defiantly puts a company outside the mainstream and limits third party server applications like mail filtering, antivirus, web surfing control, etc. Running a business on Linux servers is, IMHO, very a very viable option. But, it pretty much requires a resident propeller-head to smooth over the rough spots. Most small companies (where SBS is targeted) just can't afford a full-time system admin. They would much rather farm it out to a consultant. Let's not forget that Exchange is more than email as well. There's nothing in the open source arena (that I know of) that can provide the same functionality that Exchange provides. I'll conclude stating that IMHO, SBS is an excellent value when applied in the appropriate environment - that is a small company (5-15 employees) needing at least file-sharing and Exchange and with no resident system admin. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 6:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server Thought long and hard about letting this go, but where is the fun in that? First, to answer the migration piece of this. The only option I can think of at this time would be to treat the SBS Exchange system as a foreign mail system, meaning export and import mailbox data to migrate. Migration costs will be 10-20 times what it would be to simply put another server in place and move users. But, if is your only option... Now on to the fun... SBS License: $1,499.00 (5 clients) Real W2K Server license: $1,199.00 (10 clients) E2K Standard Edition: $1,299.00 (can always be upgraded to Enterprise if needed) Now, realistically, if you are a small little shop, this is all the Microsoft products that you need and so for 1.67 times the amount you eliminate all of the limitations of SBS and have actual, real products versus cripple-ware. But what about ISA? Don't need it. Go get a Linksys box for $100 for your firewall and it is wide open outbound. But what about SQL Server? IF you need it, then it's $1,499.00. Otherwise, you don't need it. If you are a small business, you can get cripple-ware for $1.5K or actual software to run your business for $2-4K. Under the first scenario you are setting yourself up for failure and under the second, you have invested just a little more money but have primed your business for growth. And if you are such a cash-strapped business that you cannot afford the extra grand or two, then you should probably be looking at free software. Put a Linux box up, done. It's cost $0.00. And, just for fun, 2 MCP exams, ~$250 and an MCSP license ~$2000.00. So again, for just a few extra (hundreds) of dollars you get lots and lots and lots of actual software versus cripple-ware. So where is the business case for SBS? There isn't one. It is for closed-minded, all I know is Microsoft, lazy people that do not think far enough ahead to keep them from running into closed doors. Installing SBS is setting yourself up for failure, period. I have seen it time and time again. It is Microsoft cripple-ware, plain and simple. You get what you pay for and you get what you deserve when you don't plan ahead. I am more than willing to admit I am wrong, so show me a business case where SBS is the RIGHT solution. And by that, I do not mean the lowest cost solution, because Linux has that one well in hand. I mean, when all the pros and cons are analyzed, that SBS is the winner. I honestly have never encountered it. You know what they say: opinions are like, well never mind... Personally, I think SBS is a fantastic product, provided you keep it's limitations in mind up front. Yes, it would be a pain to upgrade, but my guess is that the vast majority of SBS installations would never face that task. Most small companies (10-15 employees) could never afford to buy Win2k, E2K, and ISA server, let alone SQLServer. SBS gives them all this for the price of Win2K server alone! -Original Message- From: Greg
deleting default mailbox store
I'm interested in deleting the default mailbox store that's created as part of the first storage group of a new Exchange 2000 install. Is this not possible? The error message I receive is: A Site Replication Service currently uses this mailbox store. The service must be removed before deleting this store. Now, I can't delete the last site replication service nor can I add a site replication service when one already exists. What to do? -Yanek. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail Relaying Originator
I recently setup my MS Exchange server such that only people connecting from a specific set of IP addresses (my company's IP range) and connections to an internal IP address are allowed to relay mail. After doing so, I am still noticing mail in the IMC queue that has an originator of David Morrow Network Administrator Autodata Solutions Company Ph: (519) 951-6067 Fax: (519) 451-6615 mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Poor planning on your part does not necessitate an emergency on my part. This message has originated from Autodata Solutions Company. The attached material is the Confidential and Proprietary Information of Autodata Solutions Company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete this message and notify the Autodata system administrator at [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Logging denied connections on Exchange 2000
Hi list I have now been searching the Exchange Help and Google for some time to find out how to do this but I cannot find the answer If I have blocked some IP addresses from connecting in the SMTP Virtual Server Properties, I would like to be able to check if there has been any attempts to connect from these hosts. In Exchange 5.5 I could enable full SMPT logging and check here but I cannot find the equivalent feature in Exchange 2000 The same goes for the filtering in the Message Delivery Properties Can anybody help, please TIA Freddie _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
AW: scan Ex2000 for phrases or certain words in emails
Clint I have a script running on my Exchange 2000 which checks ALL incoming messages and blocks messages containing specific keywords or phrases. Works like a dream ! Email me off-list if you want me to send it to you Freddie When the printer still won't print after 20 tries, send the job to all the printers in the office. One of them is bound to work. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Kleciak, Clint D N21 [mailto:Clint.Kleciak;CIGNA.COM] Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. November 2002 17:02 An: Exchange Discussions Betreff: scan Ex2000 for phrases or certain words in emails Any such functionality or third product tool? thanks Clint -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown. This e-mail transmission may contain confidential information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from your files if you are not the intended recipient. Thank you for your compliance. Copyright (c) 2002 CIGNA _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Import Address list
Once I Export from Outlook how do I import into Exchange 2000? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RBL's
At no time have I said that companies can't choose to implement RBLs; simply that they should be cognizant of the complete ramifications of the technology. Obtaining this level of understanding is a much better example of risk management than some theoretical defense against a risk which appears to have no foundation in reality. Please don't use the McDonalds lawsuit as some type of example of the legal system gone bezerk. If you actually understood the history of the case, you'd find that the judgment itself was well within the bounds of reason, even if the monetary damages awarded appear to be a bit shocking. -Original Message- From: Finch Brett [mailto:brett.finch;hrs.ualberta.ca] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 1:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Can you say 'risk management'. If someone can drive up to a window, order a coffee then take the lid off, drive over a speed bump and sue someone else, anything is possible :) -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 21:20 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's I've never heard of a single instance where a lawsuit was initiated against an organization based on incoming *spam*. Can you point to one? I can point to deals which didn't get done because of RBLs which resulted in real monetary loss, which would seem to make one more likely than the other unless you can point to a court case I'm not aware of. Matt's client side could technically be much different from a normal organization since his firm provides hosting to businesses (clients) who have their own users (another type of client). There are plenty of examples of server based filtering based on individual user settings which could potentially meet his objective and address your objection. Most of those solutions are poorly done IMNSHO. RBLs in general aren't content filtering solutions, they are connection filtering solutions. While they may at some level achieve similar results, their objectives are actually quite different. -Original Message- From: Finch Brett [mailto:brett.finch;hrs.ualberta.ca] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 4:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions I've watched this thread for a while. I don't buy the argument that a ten million deal will fail because of a bounced email via RBL. It's just as likely that a dept. with predominant females could sue for fifteen million for sexual harassment in the fact the company with the ten million dollar deal didn't take reasonable steps to protect them from this spam. There also seems to be no argument about the value of email in the workplace and that a business may find they loose a ten thousand dollar deal but save fifteen thousand in the fact their people are actually doing what they were hired to do (as mentioned in other posts bandwidth costs, storage costs as well). As for the per client configuration, that works until they start adding their contacts to the junk list or they log into a Terminal Server or via wireless with a PDA. We also don't hire people based on their skills to manage their email. Finding a moderate RBL with reasonable rules and sending a nice e-mail back to a would be spammer seems to work as well as anything. -Original Message- From: Matt Natkin [mailto:mnatkin;natco-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:49 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Very true..We have hosted exchange for business and we get the sh-t spammed out of us. But we do not block any email! That may change as our customers are complaining bitterly. The best solution we would like is a filter on the client side and not the server side. MacAfee spam kill product looks nice but I do not know if it can talk to Exchange server. (not POP) I just felt we started something ugly on this list!!:) Wanted to clarify why we were interested. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's And in general, the business needs of a firm providing free web based e-mail, vs. the business needs of a Fortune 500 company are a tad different. So are the usage patterns and a host of other factors. My only comment about RBLs as it related to your question (not being defensive, just reiterating for those who might have lost track) was that I hoped Microsoft would not integrate RBL functionality directly into the Exchange product because I felt that such solutions were best left to 3rd party vendors... and then proceeded to mention a couple of reasons why I thought this to be true. -Original Message- From: Matt Natkin [mailto:mnatkin;natco-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions I originally questioned about RBL's
RE: field is empty
There are several trillion possible values for the To header in a mail message. Any of them could be present in a spam message. -Original Message- From: Exchange List [mailto:exchangelist;ubl.com.pk] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 1:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions But at least it contains a header in To: field, what about the mails which does not contain headers. irf -Original Message- From: Stephen Grant [mailto:grant;fsna.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 8:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: field is empty If you block BCC: ( I dont know if you can) You will no longer receive this list's emails. They are sent using BCC. Steve -Original Message- From: Exchange List [mailto:exchangelist;ubl.com.pk] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: field is empty Some users are getting mails from the Internet in which To: field is empty, or doing BCC: how can I block such kind of mails. Irf. -Original Message- From: Dale Geoffrey Edwards [mailto:Dale.Edwards;AmericanTower.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 7:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: field is empty If I understand you correctly, which I believe I am a little confused, if you put all the names in the BCC field, no other person will know that someone got the same message. Is this what you are loosing for? Gèoff... -Original Message- From: Exchange List [mailto:exchangelist;ubl.com.pk] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: To: field is empty Is their a way that we block emails that does not contain any to header in To: and yet still managed to deliver to our users ? Thanks Regards. Irfan Malik. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Import Address list
csvde, ldifde, adsi -Original Message- From: Jonathan [mailto:jwright;spectore.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions I have personal contacts located in my Outlook XP that I would like to import into Exchange 2000. What are the possibe ways of doing this? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Using a PST for 'overflow'
I think you'd benefit more from something like kvault that moved the data out to nearline or offline storage, but left it within the Exchange environment. It will result in far less usage of drive space, is easily backed up and will result in fewer support calls. There are several Exchange Archiving products out there. None are particularly cheap, but then what's the total organizational cost of how you're managing it today? IT is supposed to be a facilitator of whatever the business does to make money. In general individual users do not have the skill or regimentation to be their own librarians. That's why in many large companies there is one, though not in nearly enough companies. IT should be helping the users apply the data retention, categorization, and retrievability policies defined by the librarian. Any mucking about with mailbox limits is a treatment of a symptom, not the root causes. I do understand that servers must be maintained at a recoverable level as defined by formal or informal SLA's. I just don't believe that pushing data that people deem valuable into unrecoverable and widely dispersed storage media is the right way to maintain the SLA. === Andy Webb[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.swinc.com Simpler-Webb, Inc. Austin, TX512-322-0071 === ---Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Posted At: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:26 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: Using a PST for 'overflow' Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' We've been forced into restricting mailboxes as everyones being moved to a central server. Most users are having no problems getting their mailboxes down to 25-50mb, some much lower, a handful much higher. I'm finding it easiest to set some limits on the IS, then override that on individual mailboxes, as required, the MD for instance has a 500mb mailbox, after 2 CD's worth of archiving :-O What I've been saying to users is delete everything you can, anything older than 2 months that you need to keep put into a subfolder, then I go round and export these folders to PSTs, and dump them in their user folders on their local file servers, meaning they're included in the backups on their local servers, but the backup and disk space burden is removed from the Exchange server. I test the PSTs before deleting the originals, but I've seen nothing bigger than about 4-500mb. With enforced limits user will have to keep things in order, and we'll have to look at ongoing archiving in the method described above. 99% aren't aware of PST's, which is probably a good thing, though its added to my workload -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: 06 November 2002 13:01 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' I do. They don't know they can save them up on their home folder. They know I don't back up the workstations, but most think that you only can save PSTs on local drives ;) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Sander Van Butzelaar Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 07:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' Why the hard line approach? I never said I made the backup of the PST, that's why one has a facilities department...I also didn't say that I found that mail particularly important, the user wants to keep it, so why not let him/her? They know not to come to me regarding items in PST files. Give the user a bit of slack here David. Sander -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: 06 November 2002 01:56 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' No, just inform them of the 'No PST Backup' policy. I don't back up PSTs. Period. Either its in their mailbox or it is not that important. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Sander Van Butzelaar Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 05:49 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' I have a couple of users who do the same thing. They don't want to delete old mail (for whatever reason) and I can't keep extending their mailbox sizes. So they move to PST. Be aware of the risks here! Make a periodic backup of that PST as hard drives are prone to failure. Sander -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: 06 November 2002 12:45 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Using a PST for 'overflow' I was having a discussion with someone the other day and he mentioned this phrase in passing, that they used PST files when user mailboxes became full I didn't dwell on this as we were talking about something else, but can anyone suggest what he
RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server
In order to be fair, I was using Microsoft's posted prices for their software. There are always going to be lower prices out there from places like CDW and so the prices I quoted for W2K and E2K will also available at a similarly lower price from places like CDW. Rebates come and go, and again, price alone should never be the determining factor when putting in the systems that will run your entire business. Also, the prices I quoted include 10 CALs for W2K and 5 CALS for Exchange. SBS only includes 5 CALs. Yes, you have to buy additional CALs for SBS at about $60 each. I would argue that Linux is well within the mainstream and because Unix has been around far longer than Windows, there are tons and tons and tons of software, much of it for free. And as far as Exchange-equivalency, http://networking.earthweb.com/netos/article/0,,12083_1466561,00.html. And, it is $999 with no CALs. Also, have you seen the new interfaces on some of the Linux distributions? Without hitting Ctrl-Alt-Backspace, you would almost never know that it was not Windows. That Linux support is difficult and expensive is an old argument that does not stand up with developments in the Linux world. I have worked with Linux since the time you had to download and compile your own kernel. And what you state was true of Linux 2 years ago, but administering Linux is no more complicated today than administering Windows networks. Is it different than Windows? Yes. More complicated? No. And I would argue that finding good, low cost Linux resources is very easy since many of the kids today that are coming out of high school and college are Linux-fluent, even more so than Windows NT or Windows 2000 fluent. Now, if by mainstream you mean Microsoft and IBM/Notes, then I would agree with you that they have few products for Linux, but there are applications for Linux that fill every or nearly every niche need that a company could ever want. In fact, for many of the vendors in this space, Windows versions are secondary to Unix/Linux platforms. To point: http://www.trendmicro.com/en/products/gateway/isvw/evaluate/overview.htm http://www.trendmicro.com/en/products/gateway/isem/evaluate/requirements.htm And that is just one major vendor that fills the niches that you specified. Linux comes with a built-in firewall and proxy server and there are many packages out there for extending its capabilities. SBS is cripple-ware. What other Microsoft product has a Q-article specifically devoted to product limitations? There are at least 12 major limitations listed in Q295765. Again, what possible motive can there be for setting oneself up to fail? What would any company pigeon-hole themselves into never growing above 10 employees? It does not make any business sense. Here's my take: A quick peek a CDW shows SBS at $1277 http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.asp?EDC=274287. Microsoft is offering a $500 rebate if you can read the SBS sales literature and answer 20 some-odd questions. That puts the price at $777. I'm not familiar with the MCSP program, so I cannot comment on that. You are also forgetting about Exchange CALS at $70 each. You are correct in that growing past SBS is somewhat painful (I might argue with the 10-20 times more expensive. Exmerging 50 mailboxes is not that painful...), but I would maintain that if a company finds themselves outgrowing SBS, then it should not have been put in in the first place. Yes, Linux is a viable option for small companies (big ones, too). It does have some drawbacks, though. 1. Support. Finding a local consultant to support a Linux system is going to be harder than finding someone to support Microsoft products. 2. Third-party applications. Going Linux defiantly puts a company outside the mainstream and limits third party server applications like mail filtering, antivirus, web surfing control, etc. Running a business on Linux servers is, IMHO, very a very viable option. But, it pretty much requires a resident propeller-head to smooth over the rough spots. Most small companies (where SBS is targeted) just can't afford a full-time system admin. They would much rather farm it out to a consultant. Let's not forget that Exchange is more than email as well. There's nothing in the open source arena (that I know of) that can provide the same functionality that Exchange provides. I'll conclude stating that IMHO, SBS is an excellent value when applied in the appropriate environment - that is a small company (5-15 employees) needing at least file-sharing and Exchange and with no resident system admin. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 6:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server Thought long and hard about letting this go, but where is the fun in that? First, to answer the migration piece of this. The only option I can think of at this
RE: RBL's
The McDonalds coffee incident is typical of how the media grabs a story and presents only the sensationalized aspect of it ( Insane law system gives awards woman for being burned by hot coffee!). There's quite a bit more to this story than what was ever presented. Short version: 1. McDonalds served their coffee at 180 degrees Fahrenheit, even though they knew the food industry standards say no more than 140 degrees - specifically because of the danger involved. They did this claiming that customers purchased coffee to drink when they got to where they were going - not on the way, and thus needed to be hotter to stay hot longer. 2. McDonalds had been sued many times before over people being burned by their coffee. They deemed it cheaper in the long run to simply pay the people large sums of money with the stipulation that they keep their mouths shut. 3. The woman was not just burned - she was scalded. She required months of hospitalization and numerous skin grafts to the leg and crotch area (ouch!). 4. She initially turned down McDonalds hush money offer and took the story public hoping to prevent anyone else from going through what she went through. However, after being made a laughing stock by the media, and being presented an even larger offer by McDonalds, she caved and took the money. Long version: Left as an exercise to the reader. Refer to your web search tool of choice. -Original Message- From: Finch Brett [mailto:brett.finch;hrs.ualberta.ca] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 2:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Can you say 'risk management'. If someone can drive up to a window, order a coffee then take the lid off, drive over a speed bump and sue someone else, anything is possible :) -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 21:20 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's I've never heard of a single instance where a lawsuit was initiated against an organization based on incoming *spam*. Can you point to one? I can point to deals which didn't get done because of RBLs which resulted in real monetary loss, which would seem to make one more likely than the other unless you can point to a court case I'm not aware of. Matt's client side could technically be much different from a normal organization since his firm provides hosting to businesses (clients) who have their own users (another type of client). There are plenty of examples of server based filtering based on individual user settings which could potentially meet his objective and address your objection. Most of those solutions are poorly done IMNSHO. RBLs in general aren't content filtering solutions, they are connection filtering solutions. While they may at some level achieve similar results, their objectives are actually quite different. -Original Message- From: Finch Brett [mailto:brett.finch;hrs.ualberta.ca] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 4:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions I've watched this thread for a while. I don't buy the argument that a ten million deal will fail because of a bounced email via RBL. It's just as likely that a dept. with predominant females could sue for fifteen million for sexual harassment in the fact the company with the ten million dollar deal didn't take reasonable steps to protect them from this spam. There also seems to be no argument about the value of email in the workplace and that a business may find they loose a ten thousand dollar deal but save fifteen thousand in the fact their people are actually doing what they were hired to do (as mentioned in other posts bandwidth costs, storage costs as well). As for the per client configuration, that works until they start adding their contacts to the junk list or they log into a Terminal Server or via wireless with a PDA. We also don't hire people based on their skills to manage their email. Finding a moderate RBL with reasonable rules and sending a nice e-mail back to a would be spammer seems to work as well as anything. -Original Message- From: Matt Natkin [mailto:mnatkin;natco-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:49 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Very true..We have hosted exchange for business and we get the sh-t spammed out of us. But we do not block any email! That may change as our customers are complaining bitterly. The best solution we would like is a filter on the client side and not the server side. MacAfee spam kill product looks nice but I do not know if it can talk to Exchange server. (not POP) I just felt we started something ugly on this list!!:) Wanted to clarify why we were interested. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's And in general, the business needs of a firm providing free web based e-mail,
Re: Logging denied connections on Exchange 2000
Exchange System Manager | Servers | server | Protocols | SMTP | SMTP virtual server | Properties On the General tab at the bottom you can enable logging and by hitting the properties button, you can include a ton of information. Hi list I have now been searching the Exchange Help and Google for some time to find out how to do this but I cannot find the answer If I have blocked some IP addresses from connecting in the SMTP Virtual Server Properties, I would like to be able to check if there has been any attempts to connect from these hosts. In Exchange 5.5 I could enable full SMPT logging and check here but I cannot find the equivalent feature in Exchange 2000 The same goes for the filtering in the Message Delivery Properties Can anybody help, please TIA Freddie _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server
You mentioned that there is nothing in the Linux world like Exchange. I haven't looked at this but I received this Open Exchange link from a friend of mine the other day. I can't vouch for it, but thought I'd throw it out. http://www.suse.com/us/business/products/suse_business/openexchange/index.ht ml Tony McCullough -Original Message- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:Ken.Cornetet;kimball.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server Here's my take: A quick peek a CDW shows SBS at $1277 http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.asp?EDC=274287. Microsoft is offering a $500 rebate if you can read the SBS sales literature and answer 20 some-odd questions. That puts the price at $777. I'm not familiar with the MCSP program, so I cannot comment on that. You are also forgetting about Exchange CALS at $70 each. You are correct in that growing past SBS is somewhat painful (I might argue with the 10-20 times more expensive. Exmerging 50 mailboxes is not that painful...), but I would maintain that if a company finds themselves outgrowing SBS, then it should not have been put in in the first place. Yes, Linux is a viable option for small companies (big ones, too). It does have some drawbacks, though. 1. Support. Finding a local consultant to support a Linux system is going to be harder than finding someone to support Microsoft products. 2. Third-party applications. Going Linux defiantly puts a company outside the mainstream and limits third party server applications like mail filtering, antivirus, web surfing control, etc. Running a business on Linux servers is, IMHO, very a very viable option. But, it pretty much requires a resident propeller-head to smooth over the rough spots. Most small companies (where SBS is targeted) just can't afford a full-time system admin. They would much rather farm it out to a consultant. Let's not forget that Exchange is more than email as well. There's nothing in the open source arena (that I know of) that can provide the same functionality that Exchange provides. I'll conclude stating that IMHO, SBS is an excellent value when applied in the appropriate environment - that is a small company (5-15 employees) needing at least file-sharing and Exchange and with no resident system admin. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 6:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server Thought long and hard about letting this go, but where is the fun in that? First, to answer the migration piece of this. The only option I can think of at this time would be to treat the SBS Exchange system as a foreign mail system, meaning export and import mailbox data to migrate. Migration costs will be 10-20 times what it would be to simply put another server in place and move users. But, if is your only option... Now on to the fun... SBS License: $1,499.00 (5 clients) Real W2K Server license: $1,199.00 (10 clients) E2K Standard Edition: $1,299.00 (can always be upgraded to Enterprise if needed) Now, realistically, if you are a small little shop, this is all the Microsoft products that you need and so for 1.67 times the amount you eliminate all of the limitations of SBS and have actual, real products versus cripple-ware. But what about ISA? Don't need it. Go get a Linksys box for $100 for your firewall and it is wide open outbound. But what about SQL Server? IF you need it, then it's $1,499.00. Otherwise, you don't need it. If you are a small business, you can get cripple-ware for $1.5K or actual software to run your business for $2-4K. Under the first scenario you are setting yourself up for failure and under the second, you have invested just a little more money but have primed your business for growth. And if you are such a cash-strapped business that you cannot afford the extra grand or two, then you should probably be looking at free software. Put a Linux box up, done. It's cost $0.00. And, just for fun, 2 MCP exams, ~$250 and an MCSP license ~$2000.00. So again, for just a few extra (hundreds) of dollars you get lots and lots and lots of actual software versus cripple-ware. So where is the business case for SBS? There isn't one. It is for closed-minded, all I know is Microsoft, lazy people that do not think far enough ahead to keep them from running into closed doors. Installing SBS is setting yourself up for failure, period. I have seen it time and time again. It is Microsoft cripple-ware, plain and simple. You get what you pay for and you get what you deserve when you don't plan ahead. I am more than willing to admit I am wrong, so show me a business case where SBS is the RIGHT solution. And by that, I do not mean the lowest cost solution, because Linux has that one well in hand. I mean, when all the pros and cons are analyzed, that SBS is the winner. I honestly have never encountered it.
Re: deleting default mailbox store
OK, you mention that this is a new Exchange 2000 install. SRS's are used to replicate information between E2K AG's and E55 sites, so something does not jive here. Is this an E2K server installed into an E55 site? To be picky, this is not a new Exchange 2000 install, this is an E2K upgrade or typical migration. From Microsoft docs: You can delete an instance of Site Replication Service even if it is in use, but this is not recommended. If you remove the service, all copies of Exchange 5.5 directories are removed from computers running Exchange 2000 Server and replication data is lost. To restore copies of the Exchange 5.5 directory, create a new instance of Site Replication Service to replace the one you deleted. I'm interested in deleting the default mailbox store that's created as part of the first storage group of a new Exchange 2000 install. Is this not possible? The error message I receive is: A Site Replication Service currently uses this mailbox store. The service must be removed before deleting this store. Now, I can't delete the last site replication service nor can I add a site replication service when one already exists. What to do? -Yanek. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Postmaster reply address
From Microsoft docs: For tracking purposes, you can send a copy of all nondelivery reports to a specific e-mail address, such as the organization's postmaster account. The e-mail address specified is also placed in the Reply-To field of the nondelivery report. This allows users to respond to the error message and potentially reach someone who can help resolve the problem. If a nondelivery report can't be delivered to the sender, a copy of the original message is placed in the bad mail directory. Messages placed in the bad mail directory can't be delivered or returned. You can use the bad mail directory to track potential abuse of your messaging system. By default, the bad mail directory is located at root:\Exchsrvr\Mailroot\vsi#\BadMail, where root is the install drive for Exchange Server and # is the number of the SMTP virtual server, such as C:\Exchsrvr\Mailroot\vsi 1\BadMail. You can change the location of the bad mail directory at any time, but you should never place the directory on the M: drive, which is reserved for other types of Exchange Server data. If you have another mail system in your organization that handles the same mail as the SMTP virtual server, you may want to have the SMTP virtual server forward unresolved recipients to this server. In this way, when Exchange Server receives e-mail for a user it can't resolve, Exchange Server forwards the e-mail to the other mail system, where the recipients can be resolved. For example, if your organization has an Exchange server and a Sendmail server, Exchange Server may receive mail intended for users on the Sendmail server. When Exchange Server can't resolve these users, it'll forward the mail to the Sendmail server. Caution When forwarding is enabled, Exchange Server won't generate nondelivery reports for unresolved mail. Because of this, you should make sure that another mail system is able to send nondelivery reports if necessary. You should also ensure that mail sent to your organization is first delivered to Exchange Server and then forwarded as necessary. You can configure these nondelivery options by completing the following steps: Start System Manager. If administrative groups are enabled, expand the administrative group in which the server you want to use is located. In the console tree, navigate to the Protocols container. Expand Servers, expand the server you want to work with, and then expand Protocols. In the console tree, expand SMTP. Right-click the virtual server that you want to work with, and select Properties. Click the Messages tab, as shown in Figure 13-9. In Send A Copy Of Non-Delivery Report To, type the e-mail address of the organization's postmaster account or other account that should receive a copy of Non Delivery Reports (NDR). In Badmail Directory, type the full path to the directory in which you want to store bad mail. If you don't know the full path, click Browse, and then use the Browse For Folder dialog box to find the folder you want to use. If you have another mail system in your organization that handles the same mail as the SMTP virtual server, type the host name in Forward All Mail With Unresolved Recipients To Host. Click OK. Exchange2k SP3 I am having trouble trying to figure out how to change the postmaster reply address on NDRs sent to internet users. Is it possible? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: deleting default mailbox store
Do you still have a need to be in Exchane mixed mode (any Exch 5.5 servers left or plan on adding any)? -Original Message- From: Yanek Korff [mailto:yanek;cigital.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: deleting default mailbox store I'm interested in deleting the default mailbox store that's created as part of the first storage group of a new Exchange 2000 install. Is this not possible? The error message I receive is: A Site Replication Service currently uses this mailbox store. The service must be removed before deleting this store. Now, I can't delete the last site replication service nor can I add a site replication service when one already exists. What to do? -Yanek. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: deleting default mailbox store
Finish your migration, then remove the store. === Andy Webb[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.swinc.com Simpler-Webb, Inc. Austin, TX512-322-0071 === ---Original Message- From: Yanek Korff [mailto:yanek;cigital.com] Posted At: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:15 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: deleting default mailbox store Subject: deleting default mailbox store I'm interested in deleting the default mailbox store that's created as part of the first storage group of a new Exchange 2000 install. Is this not possible? The error message I receive is: A Site Replication Service currently uses this mailbox store. The service must be removed before deleting this store. Now, I can't delete the last site replication service nor can I add a site replication service when one already exists. What to do? -Yanek. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Using a PST for 'overflow'
Hi there I have the same issue here. People have PST files that are well over a gig, and we had one person go over the 2 gig limit. No matter what we tell them, they insist that they need a mailbox over a gig. I limit them to a max of 300 megs, no matter how much crying they do. I just don't know what to do. I have told people once their PSTs hit 600 megs, then I'll transfer it to my machine and burn them a CD rom. Thanks Russell -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 6:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' No, just inform them of the 'No PST Backup' policy. I don't back up PSTs. Period. Either its in their mailbox or it is not that important. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Sander Van Butzelaar Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 05:49 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' I have a couple of users who do the same thing. They don't want to delete old mail (for whatever reason) and I can't keep extending their mailbox sizes. So they move to PST. Be aware of the risks here! Make a periodic backup of that PST as hard drives are prone to failure. Sander -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: 06 November 2002 12:45 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Using a PST for 'overflow' I was having a discussion with someone the other day and he mentioned this phrase in passing, that they used PST files when user mailboxes became full I didn't dwell on this as we were talking about something else, but can anyone suggest what he may have meant? We are now enforcing stricter limits on mailbox size and would be interested in something like this. For ongoing maintenance, is Outlooks Autoarchiving a viable solution? i.e. does this move mail out of the server information store and into a PST in the users local profile? Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Quick SMTP cluster question
Short answer, yes SMTP protocol and Exchange SMTP virtual servers are supported on clusters. Long answer, get E55 out of your head. There is no more SMTP connector per se. What you have is an SMTP service as part of your W2K server. You create SMTP Virtual Servers in Exchange to utilize this SMTP service. The key word here is virtual. You can create 50 virtual servers and they are all using the same W2K SMTP service under the covers. Can an exchange 2000 active/passive cluster host an SMTP connector or would the SMTP connector have to reside on a dedicated bridgehead server? Most of the articles I find say that SMTP protocol is supported on a cluster but I do not know if the SMTP connector is supported. Thanks - Jason _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Moving E2k storage group to new Server
SuSE's OpenExchange server product sounds like a close replacement for a Windows e-mail/collabaration server: http://www.suse.com/us/business/products/suse_business/openexchange/index.html On Wednesday 06 November 2002 16:08, you wrote: Here's my take: A quick peek a CDW shows SBS at $1277 http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.asp?EDC=274287. Microsoft is offering a $500 rebate if you can read the SBS sales literature and answer 20 some-odd questions. That puts the price at $777. I'm not familiar with the MCSP program, so I cannot comment on that. You are also forgetting about Exchange CALS at $70 each. You are correct in that growing past SBS is somewhat painful (I might argue with the 10-20 times more expensive. Exmerging 50 mailboxes is not that painful...), but I would maintain that if a company finds themselves outgrowing SBS, then it should not have been put in in the first place. Yes, Linux is a viable option for small companies (big ones, too). It does have some drawbacks, though. 1. Support. Finding a local consultant to support a Linux system is going to be harder than finding someone to support Microsoft products. 2. Third-party applications. Going Linux defiantly puts a company outside the mainstream and limits third party server applications like mail filtering, antivirus, web surfing control, etc. Running a business on Linux servers is, IMHO, very a very viable option. But, it pretty much requires a resident propeller-head to smooth over the rough spots. Most small companies (where SBS is targeted) just can't afford a full-time system admin. They would much rather farm it out to a consultant. Let's not forget that Exchange is more than email as well. There's nothing in the open source arena (that I know of) that can provide the same functionality that Exchange provides. I'll conclude stating that IMHO, SBS is an excellent value when applied in the appropriate environment - that is a small company (5-15 employees) needing at least file-sharing and Exchange and with no resident system admin. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 6:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server Thought long and hard about letting this go, but where is the fun in that? First, to answer the migration piece of this. The only option I can think of at this time would be to treat the SBS Exchange system as a foreign mail system, meaning export and import mailbox data to migrate. Migration costs will be 10-20 times what it would be to simply put another server in place and move users. But, if is your only option... Now on to the fun... SBS License: $1,499.00 (5 clients) Real W2K Server license: $1,199.00 (10 clients) E2K Standard Edition: $1,299.00 (can always be upgraded to Enterprise if needed) Now, realistically, if you are a small little shop, this is all the Microsoft products that you need and so for 1.67 times the amount you eliminate all of the limitations of SBS and have actual, real products versus cripple-ware. But what about ISA? Don't need it. Go get a Linksys box for $100 for your firewall and it is wide open outbound. But what about SQL Server? IF you need it, then it's $1,499.00. Otherwise, you don't need it. If you are a small business, you can get cripple-ware for $1.5K or actual software to run your business for $2-4K. Under the first scenario you are setting yourself up for failure and under the second, you have invested just a little more money but have primed your business for growth. And if you are such a cash-strapped business that you cannot afford the extra grand or two, then you should probably be looking at free software. Put a Linux box up, done. It's cost $0.00. And, just for fun, 2 MCP exams, ~$250 and an MCSP license ~$2000.00. So again, for just a few extra (hundreds) of dollars you get lots and lots and lots of actual software versus cripple-ware. So where is the business case for SBS? There isn't one. It is for closed-minded, all I know is Microsoft, lazy people that do not think far enough ahead to keep them from running into closed doors. Installing SBS is setting yourself up for failure, period. I have seen it time and time again. It is Microsoft cripple-ware, plain and simple. You get what you pay for and you get what you deserve when you don't plan ahead. I am more than willing to admit I am wrong, so show me a business case where SBS is the RIGHT solution. And by that, I do not mean the lowest cost solution, because Linux has that one well in hand. I mean, when all the pros and cons are analyzed, that SBS is the winner. I honestly have never encountered it. You know what they say: opinions are like, well never mind... Personally, I think SBS is a fantastic product, provided you keep it's limitations in mind up front. Yes, it would be a pain to upgrade, but
RE: Mail Relaying Originator
FAQ -Original Message- From: Dave Morrow [mailto:David.Morrow;autodata.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Poor planning on your part does not necessitate an emergency on my part. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Import Address list
I just told you -Original Message- From: Jonathan [mailto:jwright;spectore.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Import Address list Once I Export from Outlook how do I import into Exchange 2000? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 issues
This is where things get really complicated. These 2 servers are not in the same ORG as all the other servers. They are, however (through some procedure that I am have no knowledge of that was done 2 years before I took this over) faked into thinking that they are in the same ORG. I have no idea how any of this was done, again before my time. I may want to just delete the old X.400 between SD and Irvine and force a re-calculation of the routing table. I am grasping a straws at this point. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues G-d do you need a consulting engagement! I know someone in San Diego who could spend a couple days with you on this if you really need the help. Anyway, let me see if I can sort this out: EC -x400- Irvine (cost 1) EC -x400- SD (cost 1) Irvine -x400- SD (cost 100) EC -IMC (cost 1?) Irvine -IMC (Cost 99) Now, a few things to keep in mind. In the grand scheme of Ex5.5 routing, cost is the 7th (of 7) factors used for routing decisions, and therefore doesn't play as much of a role in routing as it should. However, make sure that you've set the cost correctly at both ends, and make sure that you're not setting the option to only use least cost routes. Now - another question. You bought this company. Did you migrate them to the same Org as your company, or are they set up as a separate org name? If they are different orgs, what are the address space entries on your x.400 and IMS with regards to the other company's domains? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Not really an option. The scenario is this: The one remote server is in San Diego that used to be connected to the other remote server in Irvine,CA by an X.400 connector over a T1. The only server that was connected to the hub server on the E.Coast was the one in Irvine. There was an X.400 connector between SD and Irvine, then an X.400 connector to the EC. There is now an separate X.400 connector from SD and Irvine to the hub server. The Irvine server has an IMC that was used by the old company (that was bought by us). The cost on the connectors to the hub server from each site is set to 1. The old connector from SD to Irvine has a cost of 100. The IMC on Irvine is set to 99. I would like to remove the old connector from SD-Irvine but, the connectors from each remote site to the hub server is sooo erratic that I have mail that routes from SD-Irvine-out the IMC in Irvine then back to the hub server on the E. Coast through the corporate IMC. There is the jist of what I am going through. It is driving me nuts trying to troubleshoot this. Please help. Josh -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues What is it about your routing table that is causing the looping messages? Is it possible for you to remove redundant routes, even just one or two, to see what happens? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Yes, the queues back up for an hour or so then flush clean in a 2 minute span once the X.400 connection is successful. However, due to the way the routing table is, I have messages flowing in a roundabout fashion. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues IIRC, you're getting exceeded the maximum number of associations which usually indicates that the total number of connections and associations, which I believe is 9 associations and 10 connects per association. Are you sure there aren't any looping messages, or a butload of public folder replication traffic? Is there anything in the MTA queue? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400
RE: Import Address list
In Outlook, do a File/Import/choose from another program, etc., etc., etc., just as you would have done the export. Also the FAQs are very good for this. Gèoff... -Original Message- From: Jonathan [mailto:jwright;spectore.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Import Address list Once I Export from Outlook how do I import into Exchange 2000? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Import Address list
You are being a tad vague. One responder has assumed you meant importing the data into an Exchange 2000 mailbox. Another assumed you meant AD. Oversnipping your replies isn't helping to clear up any confusion. -Original Message- From: Jonathan [mailto:jwright;spectore.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Once I Export from Outlook how do I import into Exchange 2000? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Postmaster reply address
I don't know if you _can_ change it, but you shouldn't. Isn't there an RFC that says a system has to have to have [EMAIL PROTECTED]? Anyway, just configure your profile (or another one) to look at that mailbox. Drew Nicholson Technical Writer Network Engineer LAN Manager RapidApp 312-372-7188 (work) 312-543-0008 (cell) Born To Edit -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:MWoodruff;inchord.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:20 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Postmaster reply address Exchange2k SP3 I am having trouble trying to figure out how to change the postmaster reply address on NDRs sent to internet users. Is it possible? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Mail Relaying Originator
There are tiny evil gremlins in your server that are sending these messages. But unlike in the movie Gremlins, (which was excellent if slightly technically flawed) these ones will shrivel into dust if they are put in water. Submerge your server in 24 degree (celcius) water for one full hour *while it is turned on*. I can't tell you how important this last part is. Alternately, it is perfectly normal behavior that is discussed in the SMTP RFCs as well as the list posting FAQ, section 3.39. Choose wisely. -- be - MOS A computer program does what you tell it to do, not what you want it to do. -Original Message- From: Dave Morrow [mailto:David.Morrow;autodata.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Mail Relaying Originator I recently setup my MS Exchange server such that only people connecting from a specific set of IP addresses (my company's IP range) and connections to an internal IP address are allowed to relay mail. After doing so, I am still noticing mail in the IMC queue that has an originator of David Morrow Network Administrator Autodata Solutions Company Ph: (519) 951-6067 Fax: (519) 451-6615 mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Poor planning on your part does not necessitate an emergency on my part. This message has originated from Autodata Solutions Company. The attached material is not the Confidential and Proprietary Information of Autodata Solutions Company. This email and any files transmitted with it are not confidential and intended solely for the use of any individual or entity. If you have received this email in error please delete this message and notify the Autodata system administrator at [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Mail Relaying Originator
That's fine. Those are NDRs and probably shouldn't be blocked. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Dave Morrow [mailto:David.Morrow;autodata.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Mail Relaying Originator I recently setup my MS Exchange server such that only people connecting from a specific set of IP addresses (my company's IP range) and connections to an internal IP address are allowed to relay mail. After doing so, I am still noticing mail in the IMC queue that has an originator of David Morrow Network Administrator Autodata Solutions Company Ph: (519) 951-6067 Fax: (519) 451-6615 mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Poor planning on your part does not necessitate an emergency on my part. This message has originated from Autodata Solutions Company. The attached material is the Confidential and Proprietary Information of Autodata Solutions Company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete this message and notify the Autodata system administrator at [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RBL's
Caution: Thread is hot. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's At no time have I said that companies can't choose to implement RBLs; simply that they should be cognizant of the complete ramifications of the technology. Obtaining this level of understanding is a much better example of risk management than some theoretical defense against a risk which appears to have no foundation in reality. Please don't use the McDonalds lawsuit as some type of example of the legal system gone bezerk. If you actually understood the history of the case, you'd find that the judgment itself was well within the bounds of reason, even if the monetary damages awarded appear to be a bit shocking. -Original Message- From: Finch Brett [mailto:brett.finch;hrs.ualberta.ca] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 1:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Can you say 'risk management'. If someone can drive up to a window, order a coffee then take the lid off, drive over a speed bump and sue someone else, anything is possible :) -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 21:20 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's I've never heard of a single instance where a lawsuit was initiated against an organization based on incoming *spam*. Can you point to one? I can point to deals which didn't get done because of RBLs which resulted in real monetary loss, which would seem to make one more likely than the other unless you can point to a court case I'm not aware of. Matt's client side could technically be much different from a normal organization since his firm provides hosting to businesses (clients) who have their own users (another type of client). There are plenty of examples of server based filtering based on individual user settings which could potentially meet his objective and address your objection. Most of those solutions are poorly done IMNSHO. RBLs in general aren't content filtering solutions, they are connection filtering solutions. While they may at some level achieve similar results, their objectives are actually quite different. -Original Message- From: Finch Brett [mailto:brett.finch;hrs.ualberta.ca] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 4:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions I've watched this thread for a while. I don't buy the argument that a ten million deal will fail because of a bounced email via RBL. It's just as likely that a dept. with predominant females could sue for fifteen million for sexual harassment in the fact the company with the ten million dollar deal didn't take reasonable steps to protect them from this spam. There also seems to be no argument about the value of email in the workplace and that a business may find they loose a ten thousand dollar deal but save fifteen thousand in the fact their people are actually doing what they were hired to do (as mentioned in other posts bandwidth costs, storage costs as well). As for the per client configuration, that works until they start adding their contacts to the junk list or they log into a Terminal Server or via wireless with a PDA. We also don't hire people based on their skills to manage their email. Finding a moderate RBL with reasonable rules and sending a nice e-mail back to a would be spammer seems to work as well as anything. -Original Message- From: Matt Natkin [mailto:mnatkin;natco-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:49 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Very true..We have hosted exchange for business and we get the sh-t spammed out of us. But we do not block any email! That may change as our customers are complaining bitterly. The best solution we would like is a filter on the client side and not the server side. MacAfee spam kill product looks nice but I do not know if it can talk to Exchange server. (not POP) I just felt we started something ugly on this list!!:) Wanted to clarify why we were interested. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's And in general, the business needs of a firm providing free web based e-mail, vs. the business needs of a Fortune 500 company are a tad different. So are the usage patterns and a host of other factors. My only comment about RBLs as it related to your question (not being defensive, just reiterating for those who might have lost track) was that I hoped Microsoft would not integrate RBL functionality directly into the Exchange product because I felt that such solutions were best left to 3rd party vendors... and then proceeded to mention a couple of reasons why I thought this to be
RE: Using a PST for 'overflow'
.cshrc short% more .cshrc # @(#)cshrc 1.11 89/11/29 SMI umask 022 if ( $?prompt ) then set history=32 endif # # oracle environment variables setenv ORACLE_HOME /apps/oracle/816 setenv HARVESTDIR /home/user3/harvest5 setenv ORACLE_BASE /apps/oracle/816 setenv ORACLE_SID HARVEST5 setenv ORACLE_TERM dtterm setenv PATH $ORACLE_HOME/bin:$PATH setenv ODBC_HOME /apps/caiptodbc setenv ODBCINI $ODBC_HOME/odbc.ini # Harvest environment variables #setenv HARVESTHOME /apps/harvest5 setenv HARVESTHOME /home/user3/harvest5 #setenv LM_LICENSE_FILE $HARVESTHOME/license/license.dat setenv LM_LICENSE_FILE /ca_lic setenv PATH $HARVESTHOME/bin:$PATH setenv PATH /apps/caiptodbc/bin:$PATH #setenv LD_LIBRARY_PATH /home/user3/harvest5/lib:/usr/local/CAcrypto:/usr/pec/li b/sun4_solaris:/usr/local/CAlib:/apps/caiptodbc/lib setenv LD_LIBRARY_PATH /home/user3/harvest5/lib:/usr/local/CAcrypto:/usr/pec/lib /sun4_solaris:/usr/local/CAlib # setenv DEFAULT_BROWSER hotjava setenv HARREPHOME /apps/Harvest5/harrep # # FCP environment variables # setenv GALAXYHOME /apps/FCP/Galaxy setenv PATH $GALAXYHOME/bin:$PATH #set path=(/bin /usr/bin /usr/ucb /etc $HARVESTHOME/lib $ODBC_HOME/lib $ODBC_HOM E/bin $ORACLE_HOME/bin $ORACLE_HOME/lib .) set path=(/bin /usr/bin /usr/ucb /etc $HARVESTHOME/lib $HARVESTHOME/bin $ORACLE_ HOME/bin $ORACLE_HOME/lib .) setenv OPENWINHOME /usr/openwin short% -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 6:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' We've been forced into restricting mailboxes as everyones being moved to a central server. Most users are having no problems getting their mailboxes down to 25-50mb, some much lower, a handful much higher. I'm finding it easiest to set some limits on the IS, then override that on individual mailboxes, as required, the MD for instance has a 500mb mailbox, after 2 CD's worth of archiving :-O What I've been saying to users is delete everything you can, anything older than 2 months that you need to keep put into a subfolder, then I go round and export these folders to PSTs, and dump them in their user folders on their local file servers, meaning they're included in the backups on their local servers, but the backup and disk space burden is removed from the Exchange server. I test the PSTs before deleting the originals, but I've seen nothing bigger than about 4-500mb. With enforced limits user will have to keep things in order, and we'll have to look at ongoing archiving in the method described above. 99% aren't aware of PST's, which is probably a good thing, though its added to my workload -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: 06 November 2002 13:01 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' I do. They don't know they can save them up on their home folder. They know I don't back up the workstations, but most think that you only can save PSTs on local drives ;) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Sander Van Butzelaar Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 07:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' Why the hard line approach? I never said I made the backup of the PST, that's why one has a facilities department...I also didn't say that I found that mail particularly important, the user wants to keep it, so why not let him/her? They know not to come to me regarding items in PST files. Give the user a bit of slack here David. Sander -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: 06 November 2002 01:56 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' No, just inform them of the 'No PST Backup' policy. I don't back up PSTs. Period. Either its in their mailbox or it is not that important. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Sander Van Butzelaar Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 05:49 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' I have a couple of users who do the same thing. They don't want to delete old mail (for whatever reason) and I can't keep extending their mailbox sizes. So they move to PST. Be aware of the risks here! Make a periodic backup of that PST as hard drives are prone to failure. Sander -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: 06 November 2002 12:45 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Using a PST for 'overflow' I was having a discussion with someone the other day and he mentioned this phrase in passing, that they used PST files when user mailboxes became full I didn't dwell on this as we were
RE: RBL's
I agree with the facts in your short version. Still gripes me to have somebody recover for their own stupidity, however. -Original Message- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:Ken.Cornetet;kimball.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's The McDonalds coffee incident is typical of how the media grabs a story and presents only the sensationalized aspect of it ( Insane law system gives awards woman for being burned by hot coffee!). There's quite a bit more to this story than what was ever presented. Short version: 1. McDonalds served their coffee at 180 degrees Fahrenheit, even though they knew the food industry standards say no more than 140 degrees - specifically because of the danger involved. They did this claiming that customers purchased coffee to drink when they got to where they were going - not on the way, and thus needed to be hotter to stay hot longer. 2. McDonalds had been sued many times before over people being burned by their coffee. They deemed it cheaper in the long run to simply pay the people large sums of money with the stipulation that they keep their mouths shut. 3. The woman was not just burned - she was scalded. She required months of hospitalization and numerous skin grafts to the leg and crotch area (ouch!). 4. She initially turned down McDonalds hush money offer and took the story public hoping to prevent anyone else from going through what she went through. However, after being made a laughing stock by the media, and being presented an even larger offer by McDonalds, she caved and took the money. Long version: Left as an exercise to the reader. Refer to your web search tool of choice. -Original Message- From: Finch Brett [mailto:brett.finch;hrs.ualberta.ca] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 2:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Can you say 'risk management'. If someone can drive up to a window, order a coffee then take the lid off, drive over a speed bump and sue someone else, anything is possible :) -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 21:20 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's I've never heard of a single instance where a lawsuit was initiated against an organization based on incoming *spam*. Can you point to one? I can point to deals which didn't get done because of RBLs which resulted in real monetary loss, which would seem to make one more likely than the other unless you can point to a court case I'm not aware of. Matt's client side could technically be much different from a normal organization since his firm provides hosting to businesses (clients) who have their own users (another type of client). There are plenty of examples of server based filtering based on individual user settings which could potentially meet his objective and address your objection. Most of those solutions are poorly done IMNSHO. RBLs in general aren't content filtering solutions, they are connection filtering solutions. While they may at some level achieve similar results, their objectives are actually quite different. -Original Message- From: Finch Brett [mailto:brett.finch;hrs.ualberta.ca] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 4:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions I've watched this thread for a while. I don't buy the argument that a ten million deal will fail because of a bounced email via RBL. It's just as likely that a dept. with predominant females could sue for fifteen million for sexual harassment in the fact the company with the ten million dollar deal didn't take reasonable steps to protect them from this spam. There also seems to be no argument about the value of email in the workplace and that a business may find they loose a ten thousand dollar deal but save fifteen thousand in the fact their people are actually doing what they were hired to do (as mentioned in other posts bandwidth costs, storage costs as well). As for the per client configuration, that works until they start adding their contacts to the junk list or they log into a Terminal Server or via wireless with a PDA. We also don't hire people based on their skills to manage their email. Finding a moderate RBL with reasonable rules and sending a nice e-mail back to a would be spammer seems to work as well as anything. -Original Message- From: Matt Natkin [mailto:mnatkin;natco-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:49 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Very true..We have hosted exchange for business and we get the sh-t spammed out of us. But we do not block any email! That may change as our customers are complaining bitterly. The best solution we would like is a filter on the client side and not the server side. MacAfee spam kill product looks nice but I do not know if it can talk to Exchange server. (not POP) I just felt we started something ugly on this list!!:)
RE: RBL's
Martin, Here's the response I got, from the owner of SamSpade.org, as to their reasoning for leaving ORBZIN and ORBZOUT on their web site. His answers are indented and noted with Response. == Steve, Would you please consider removing the the systems mentioned above, from your DNSBLomatic? Here's my reasoning: Response: They'll be removed at some point - but remember that the primary use for my tool is so people can work out why their mail is bouncing. While people are still using ORBZ to bounce mail it's a legitimate list to check... 1. You removed the XBL for the following reason: The XBL has been removed for a number of reasons. 1) It's run by a total kook. 2) Nobody uses it. 3) It appears to list ALMOST the entire Internet. Thank you for removing them...I agree with your reasoning and have had problems our company being listed by them before. 2. ORBZIN and ORBZOUT have done the same thing. Here is the notation from their own site: Why am I listed in ORBZ? Currently, EVERY IP on the Internet is listed in ORBZ. This was done to encourage server administrators who are still using the ORBZ list 7 months after it shut down to fix their mail servers. My question at this point is, Why don't they just turn the DANG thing off? Response: The answer to that is pretty subtle. There are a huge number of people who are still querying it, creating a vast amount of DNS traffic. If they just turned it off that traffic would continue pretty much forever. By doing this they're encouraging people to stop using it. As to how good a solution that is, well I'll let you judge, but that's the reasoning. Thank you for your time and for considering my request. I hope to hear from you in the near future. Respectfully, James H (Jim) Blunt E-mail Administrator Bechtel Hanford, Inc. 509-372-9188 (work) -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:MBlackstone;superioraccess.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's That's friggin crazy!! Why don't they just turn the thing off? -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:jhblunt;bhi-erc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Here's another reason not to use RBL's. I just did a SamSpade search on the IP's for our Mail servers...and we were listed in OrbzIn and OrbzOut! Wanna know why? Here's why: Why am I listed in ORBZ? Currently, every IP on the Internet is listed in ORBZ. This was done to encourage server administrators who are still using the ORBZ list 7 months after it shut down to fix their mail servers. What is replacing ORBZ? ORBZ is being replaced by the DSBL. -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:jhblunt;bhi-erc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Here's what SamSpade.org says about the XBL: The XBL has been removed for a number of reasons. 1) It's run by a total kook. 2) Nobody uses it. 3) It appears to list almost the entire Internet. LOL -Original Message- From: B. van Ouwerkerk [mailto:ouwerkerk92;zonnet.nl] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's I just re-read his original posting. I really don't understand why he's called rude. I think he should have added that some RBL's don't even know what an RBL is supposed to do. And they're clueless about the damage they can do when not operated in The_Right_Way. Spews is a good example of a bad RBL. I've seen RBL's (including Spews and XBL) which are blocking several /24 because one IP belongs to a spammer. Mr Scharff is an optimist. Since every idiot is allowed to run a mailserver these days (and MS makes it very easy to do so) I think 98,9% is closer then the 97,25% he talked about. I don't have any specific person in mind.. so nobody should feel insulted.. If someone does.. well.. then it seems that person is just one of these idiots :-) Remember this is a tech list, not one that discusses about grammar.. In my experience it's not always a good idea to be to sensitive on lists like these. Have fun, --B. http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html At 15:18 4-11-02 -0800, you wrote: Perhaps you should read your e-mails before you send them. Just cause you wrote something down and it sounds one way in your head doesn't meant that it will sound the same way on the other end. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-97309;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's I guess the #include humor.h module wasn't loaded for you this morning. I'd suggest that the spelling remark was only rude to a subset of the 32% of admins who actually could spell RBL and
AW: Logging denied connections on Exchange 2000
Greg I have activated everything there but it seems it is only logging what happens AFTER the connection was successfully established. What I want to see is if an incoming connection is NOT accepted by my server because the IP address has been blocked Freddie Exchange System Manager | Servers | server | Protocols | SMTP | SMTP virtual server | Properties On the General tab at the bottom you can enable logging and by hitting the properties button, you can include a ton of information. Hi list I have now been searching the Exchange Help and Google for some time to find out how to do this but I cannot find the answer If I have blocked some IP addresses from connecting in the SMTP Virtual Server Properties, I would like to be able to check if there has been any attempts to connect from these hosts. In Exchange 5.5 I could enable full SMPT logging and check here but I cannot find the equivalent feature in Exchange 2000 The same goes for the filtering in the Message Delivery Properties Can anybody help, please TIA Freddie _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Distribution List
I have some users who can't see inside a distrbution list. When they are in outlook and go to the distrbution list, they can se the list ,but not the people in them. any ideas thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Service account password change
What's the general recommendation on changing service account passwords. Should it be done periodically for security reasons, perhaps when an Admin leaves the company. Is there a good online reference for all the considerations in making the change. Thanks all. Liz Ashraph Messaging Systems Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Instant Messaging Troubleshooting
Hi Greg. This reminds me of the days when Ed C. called you Deckler the heckler. How have you been? I thought that nobody was going to pick-up the bait that I threw out there. I thought it was sort of like throwing a copy of the beatitudes or some Gandhi quotes into a debate about what to do about Saddam. So being a semi-troglodyte / Luddite curmudgeon, I'll respond and see if anyone else jumps in. All of this is preceded with IMHO . . . At the heart of IM is the server which is maintaining a dynamic list of who is on line at the moment. Currently location is not an attribute in that data, but will be once the whole E-911 scenario is sorted out. There are two ways of looking at the server. In one (the one most people think about) it is purely a client view. You sign on and then ask others who are already there to be added to their lists or permission to add them to your lists. My second objection deals with this view of the technology. Some managers will see this as an opportunity to keep track of people and reserve the right to interrupt spasmodically (I like that word). PHB idiots will abuse this possibility in an almost endless array of ways that are demeaning and insulting. The first objection deals with a perspective that I don't believe most people even consider. The server to provide information about who is on line to applications through an API (probably a form of an LDAP query). This could be used for behavior tracking and advertising pushes - think of it as a cookie that is on the server instead of local. Perhaps AOL and MSN will not use it for that - but do you believe that? If so, I have a land deal in the Everglades that I would like to discuss. The very last thing that people should want to do is subscribe to a presence technology that is not purely peer-to-peer. Sometimes I think that techies have all of the worst characteristics of Robert Teller - the one guy on the Manhattan Project that would not have understood even one tiny scintilla what Jeff Goldbloom's character said in Jurassic Park, just because you can do it doesn't mean you should. IM is a vile and inhuman technology. I think it is pathetic that people are drawn to it sort of like moths to a zap light or flies to flypaper.. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Instant Messaging Troubleshooting So IM is vile and inhuman technology, but email isn't? :) I have to say, you've always got a different perspective on things, Craig! I have to admit that if you have the time, I would personally LOVE to hear your thoughts on this subject. You always had good insights on UM and other technologies back in the day. I know it is probably off topic for the list, but this list generates so much noise anyway... IM is vile and inhuman technology, especially in the hands of carriers and others with capitalist motives; but it can also move us back toward 19th century attitudes about employee-management relations. We should launch a campaign to stamp it out. I just thought I'd throw that out there. -Original Message- From: Mark Harford [mailto:mark.harford;bbc.co.uk] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 9:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Instant Messaging Troubleshooting So gold is also the server name? I'm not familiar with IM on non-default virtual servers so the only other troubleshooting step I can suggest is to try signing in using the actual IM address as shown in ADUC on your account. Presumably [EMAIL PROTECTED]? Mark -Original Message- From: Jonathan [mailto:jwright;spectore.com] Sent: 04 November 2002 17:07 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Instant Messaging Troubleshooting Thanks for your reply. I am using [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the IM logon. My DNS is setup with the SRV record under the _tcp folder listed as: rvp service location [0][0][80] gold.domain.com A Host record for the server (which has IM, E2K, IIS running on it) was dynamically added to the DNS: gold A 192.168.xxx.xxx I think I should also mention that our web service and Exchange is on the same server gold.domain.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system, do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
RE: Using a PST for 'overflow'
I am reminded of the old phrase that was so lovingly attributed to ATT back in the 60's: We're the phone company, we don't care, we don't have to. Perhaps one in the business of providing a service and wanting to be continuously improving the quality of that service with an aim toward keeping one's customers both surprised and delighted, just perhaps such a person might want to reconsider arrogant and customer abusive policies . . . Naw, especially not on the day after a kinder and gentler victory. Arrogance is in. Have at it. -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 3:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' No, just inform them of the 'No PST Backup' policy. I don't back up PSTs. Period. Either its in their mailbox or it is not that important. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Sander Van Butzelaar Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 05:49 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' I have a couple of users who do the same thing. They don't want to delete old mail (for whatever reason) and I can't keep extending their mailbox sizes. So they move to PST. Be aware of the risks here! Make a periodic backup of that PST as hard drives are prone to failure. Sander -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: 06 November 2002 12:45 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Using a PST for 'overflow' I was having a discussion with someone the other day and he mentioned this phrase in passing, that they used PST files when user mailboxes became full I didn't dwell on this as we were talking about something else, but can anyone suggest what he may have meant? We are now enforcing stricter limits on mailbox size and would be interested in something like this. For ongoing maintenance, is Outlooks Autoarchiving a viable solution? i.e. does this move mail out of the server information store and into a PST in the users local profile? Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Change to different organization without losing SIS??
You can read Q175481. SIS should be still existing in there. From what I understand of the Move Server Wizard and exmerge we would lose SIS (Single Instance Storage) if we used the wizard (or any other method??) to change our organization. (??) We are currently running Exchange 5.5 and our parent company (which we may need to change our organization to someday) is also running 5.5 today. Maybe we need to force everyone to remove their mail from the server (to those robust PST files) before attempting a changeover? Tom _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Quick SMTP cluster question
We switched last weekend from E55 IMS on a non-clustered box to an SMTP connector on an E2K active/passive cluster. No troubles. Took ten minutes (plus 7 hours tracking down what turned out to be a MAILsweeper config problem on the non-Exchange e-mail gateway server). -Original Message- From: Kelley, Jason [mailto:jwkelley;qualcomm.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Quick SMTP cluster question Can an exchange 2000 active/passive cluster host an SMTP connector or would the SMTP connector have to reside on a dedicated bridgehead server? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PF access
I am going to be running some Public Folder assessments for forms, event scripting, and data types, amounts, etc. I have been very happy with MicroEye's script director and have already used it for forms and scripts. How do you guys make sure you have an account that has access to all public folders? 2 levels below the root, our users have full access to specific public folders and often times remove admin access. I know we can go in and manually add them through the administrator, but does anyone know of way to give an account all access to all public folders without changing the other acls? And is there a good reporting tool for number and types of data within public folders? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server
Centrinity is supposed to be coming out with a Linux version of its FirstClass e-mail/UM/collab server within a month or so. It's in beta now. http://www.centrinity.com/platforms/linux/ -Original Message- From: Allison M. Wittstock [mailto:aw;inubit.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 11:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Moving E2k storage group to new Server SuSE's OpenExchange server product sounds like a close replacement for a Windows e-mail/collabaration server: http://www.suse.com/us/business/products/suse_business/openexchange/index.html On Wednesday 06 November 2002 16:08, you wrote: Here's my take: A quick peek a CDW shows SBS at $1277 http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.asp?EDC=274287. Microsoft is offering a $500 rebate if you can read the SBS sales literature and answer 20 some-odd questions. That puts the price at $777. I'm not familiar with the MCSP program, so I cannot comment on that. You are also forgetting about Exchange CALS at $70 each. You are correct in that growing past SBS is somewhat painful (I might argue with the 10-20 times more expensive. Exmerging 50 mailboxes is not that painful...), but I would maintain that if a company finds themselves outgrowing SBS, then it should not have been put in in the first place. Yes, Linux is a viable option for small companies (big ones, too). It does have some drawbacks, though. 1. Support. Finding a local consultant to support a Linux system is going to be harder than finding someone to support Microsoft products. 2. Third-party applications. Going Linux defiantly puts a company outside the mainstream and limits third party server applications like mail filtering, antivirus, web surfing control, etc. Running a business on Linux servers is, IMHO, very a very viable option. But, it pretty much requires a resident propeller-head to smooth over the rough spots. Most small companies (where SBS is targeted) just can't afford a full-time system admin. They would much rather farm it out to a consultant. Let's not forget that Exchange is more than email as well. There's nothing in the open source arena (that I know of) that can provide the same functionality that Exchange provides. I'll conclude stating that IMHO, SBS is an excellent value when applied in the appropriate environment - that is a small company (5-15 employees) needing at least file-sharing and Exchange and with no resident system admin. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exchange 2000 and GC
It is great to see the real reasons why I should not do this. I have always got an answer like: ..in my mind its not a good and MS doesn't recommends... Just a few comments about the list: 1. When you have a real problems they are always quite complexity 2. agree 3. if you create a separate site for these GC, then normal user load doesn't reach these GCs. 4. Only replication. 5. agree 6-7. true ! Do I have saw dreams or is it so that in Titanium there will be somekind small directory ? But many thanks of the list. .-Pepi-. You also want to consider the more applications/processes you run the more likely one of them will stop working. This translates into downtime. If for some reason your GC stops replicating or answering requests and the normal recovery steps don't work, you may have to reboot. It is the same for any additional processes you run on any one machine. To summarize: Reasons not to have and exchange and a GC on the same machine 1. Added troubleshooting complexity 2. Added DR complexity 3. Added CPU load 4. Added network load 5. Added disk I/O 6. Added hot-fix and SP complexity (dealing with interactions of hotfixes) 7. Domain Controller Security Policy _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server
1) That's a benefit to those of us that do Linux consulting. Yea for being able to charge more :) 2) In response to that I would have to say your wrong about being limited for products that do mail filtering, antivirus, web surfing control. There are plenty of open source programs that are available on https://sourceforge.net that do a variety of these things. In fact I'm using a sendmail server with AMaVis for virus scanning, and I'm looking at using SpamAssassin to take care of spam for us. Then mail from the sendmail server gets sent to my Exchange server. For web surfing control/firewall protection I use IPCop. Right now with the way the economy is it makes sense to use free software in applications that might be better suited for it. I'm not advocating Linux over Windows nor do I want to feed any fuel to those flames, I'm just saying that there's a best of both worlds -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-97309;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server Here's my take: A quick peek a CDW shows SBS at $1277 http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.asp?EDC=274287. Microsoft is offering a $500 rebate if you can read the SBS sales literature and answer 20 some-odd questions. That puts the price at $777. I'm not familiar with the MCSP program, so I cannot comment on that. You are also forgetting about Exchange CALS at $70 each. You are correct in that growing past SBS is somewhat painful (I might argue with the 10-20 times more expensive. Exmerging 50 mailboxes is not that painful...), but I would maintain that if a company finds themselves outgrowing SBS, then it should not have been put in in the first place. Yes, Linux is a viable option for small companies (big ones, too). It does have some drawbacks, though. 1. Support. Finding a local consultant to support a Linux system is going to be harder than finding someone to support Microsoft products. 2. Third-party applications. Going Linux defiantly puts a company outside the mainstream and limits third party server applications like mail filtering, antivirus, web surfing control, etc. Running a business on Linux servers is, IMHO, very a very viable option. But, it pretty much requires a resident propeller-head to smooth over the rough spots. Most small companies (where SBS is targeted) just can't afford a full-time system admin. They would much rather farm it out to a consultant. Let's not forget that Exchange is more than email as well. There's nothing in the open source arena (that I know of) that can provide the same functionality that Exchange provides. I'll conclude stating that IMHO, SBS is an excellent value when applied in the appropriate environment - that is a small company (5-15 employees) needing at least file-sharing and Exchange and with no resident system admin. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 6:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server Thought long and hard about letting this go, but where is the fun in that? First, to answer the migration piece of this. The only option I can think of at this time would be to treat the SBS Exchange system as a foreign mail system, meaning export and import mailbox data to migrate. Migration costs will be 10-20 times what it would be to simply put another server in place and move users. But, if is your only option... Now on to the fun... SBS License: $1,499.00 (5 clients) Real W2K Server license: $1,199.00 (10 clients) E2K Standard Edition: $1,299.00 (can always be upgraded to Enterprise if needed) Now, realistically, if you are a small little shop, this is all the Microsoft products that you need and so for 1.67 times the amount you eliminate all of the limitations of SBS and have actual, real products versus cripple-ware. But what about ISA? Don't need it. Go get a Linksys box for $100 for your firewall and it is wide open outbound. But what about SQL Server? IF you need it, then it's $1,499.00. Otherwise, you don't need it. If you are a small business, you can get cripple-ware for $1.5K or actual software to run your business for $2-4K. Under the first scenario you are setting yourself up for failure and under the second, you have invested just a little more money but have primed your business for growth. And if you are such a cash-strapped business that you cannot afford the extra grand or two, then you should probably be looking at free software. Put a Linux box up, done. It's cost $0.00. And, just for fun, 2 MCP exams, ~$250 and an MCSP license ~$2000.00. So again, for just a few extra (hundreds) of dollars you get lots and lots and lots of actual software versus cripple-ware. So where is the business case for SBS? There isn't one. It is for closed-minded, all I know is Microsoft, lazy people that
RE: RBL's
There's quite a bit more to this story than what was ever presented. Clearly not the case. I still find it insane. William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-104116;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's The McDonalds coffee incident is typical of how the media grabs a story and presents only the sensationalized aspect of it ( Insane law system gives awards woman for being burned by hot coffee!). There's quite a bit more to this story than what was ever presented. Short version: 1. McDonalds served their coffee at 180 degrees Fahrenheit, even though they knew the food industry standards say no more than 140 degrees - specifically because of the danger involved. They did this claiming that customers purchased coffee to drink when they got to where they were going - not on the way, and thus needed to be hotter to stay hot longer. 2. McDonalds had been sued many times before over people being burned by their coffee. They deemed it cheaper in the long run to simply pay the people large sums of money with the stipulation that they keep their mouths shut. 3. The woman was not just burned - she was scalded. She required months of hospitalization and numerous skin grafts to the leg and crotch area (ouch!). 4. She initially turned down McDonalds hush money offer and took the story public hoping to prevent anyone else from going through what she went through. However, after being made a laughing stock by the media, and being presented an even larger offer by McDonalds, she caved and took the money. Long version: Left as an exercise to the reader. Refer to your web search tool of choice. -Original Message- From: Finch Brett [mailto:brett.finch;hrs.ualberta.ca] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 2:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Can you say 'risk management'. If someone can drive up to a window, order a coffee then take the lid off, drive over a speed bump and sue someone else, anything is possible :) -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 21:20 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's I've never heard of a single instance where a lawsuit was initiated against an organization based on incoming *spam*. Can you point to one? I can point to deals which didn't get done because of RBLs which resulted in real monetary loss, which would seem to make one more likely than the other unless you can point to a court case I'm not aware of. Matt's client side could technically be much different from a normal organization since his firm provides hosting to businesses (clients) who have their own users (another type of client). There are plenty of examples of server based filtering based on individual user settings which could potentially meet his objective and address your objection. Most of those solutions are poorly done IMNSHO. RBLs in general aren't content filtering solutions, they are connection filtering solutions. While they may at some level achieve similar results, their objectives are actually quite different. -Original Message- From: Finch Brett [mailto:brett.finch;hrs.ualberta.ca] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 4:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions I've watched this thread for a while. I don't buy the argument that a ten million deal will fail because of a bounced email via RBL. It's just as likely that a dept. with predominant females could sue for fifteen million for sexual harassment in the fact the company with the ten million dollar deal didn't take reasonable steps to protect them from this spam. There also seems to be no argument about the value of email in the workplace and that a business may find they loose a ten thousand dollar deal but save fifteen thousand in the fact their people are actually doing what they were hired to do (as mentioned in other posts bandwidth costs, storage costs as well). As for the per client configuration, that works until they start adding their contacts to the junk list or they log into a Terminal Server or via wireless with a PDA. We also don't hire people based on their skills to manage their email. Finding a moderate RBL with reasonable rules and sending a nice e-mail back to a would be spammer seems to work as well as anything. -Original Message- From: Matt Natkin [mailto:mnatkin;natco-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:49 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Very true..We have hosted exchange for business and we get the sh-t spammed out of us. But we do not block any email! That may change as our customers are complaining bitterly. The best solution we would like is a filter on the client side and not the server side. MacAfee spam kill product looks nice but I do not know if it can talk to Exchange server. (not POP) I just felt we
RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server
It's not open and it's certainly not Exchange. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:tony.mccullough;hcs.state.or.us] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:21 AM To: Exchange Discussions You mentioned that there is nothing in the Linux world like Exchange. I haven't looked at this but I received this Open Exchange link from a friend of mine the other day. I can't vouch for it, but thought I'd throw it out. http://www.suse.com/us/business/products/suse_business/openexchange/index. ht ml Tony McCullough -Original Message- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:Ken.Cornetet;kimball.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server Here's my take: A quick peek a CDW shows SBS at $1277 http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.asp?EDC=274287. Microsoft is offering a $500 rebate if you can read the SBS sales literature and answer 20 some-odd questions. That puts the price at $777. I'm not familiar with the MCSP program, so I cannot comment on that. You are also forgetting about Exchange CALS at $70 each. You are correct in that growing past SBS is somewhat painful (I might argue with the 10-20 times more expensive. Exmerging 50 mailboxes is not that painful...), but I would maintain that if a company finds themselves outgrowing SBS, then it should not have been put in in the first place. Yes, Linux is a viable option for small companies (big ones, too). It does have some drawbacks, though. 1. Support. Finding a local consultant to support a Linux system is going to be harder than finding someone to support Microsoft products. 2. Third-party applications. Going Linux defiantly puts a company outside the mainstream and limits third party server applications like mail filtering, antivirus, web surfing control, etc. Running a business on Linux servers is, IMHO, very a very viable option. But, it pretty much requires a resident propeller-head to smooth over the rough spots. Most small companies (where SBS is targeted) just can't afford a full-time system admin. They would much rather farm it out to a consultant. Let's not forget that Exchange is more than email as well. There's nothing in the open source arena (that I know of) that can provide the same functionality that Exchange provides. I'll conclude stating that IMHO, SBS is an excellent value when applied in the appropriate environment - that is a small company (5-15 employees) needing at least file-sharing and Exchange and with no resident system admin. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 6:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server Thought long and hard about letting this go, but where is the fun in that? First, to answer the migration piece of this. The only option I can think of at this time would be to treat the SBS Exchange system as a foreign mail system, meaning export and import mailbox data to migrate. Migration costs will be 10-20 times what it would be to simply put another server in place and move users. But, if is your only option... Now on to the fun... SBS License: $1,499.00 (5 clients) Real W2K Server license: $1,199.00 (10 clients) E2K Standard Edition: $1,299.00 (can always be upgraded to Enterprise if needed) Now, realistically, if you are a small little shop, this is all the Microsoft products that you need and so for 1.67 times the amount you eliminate all of the limitations of SBS and have actual, real products versus cripple-ware. But what about ISA? Don't need it. Go get a Linksys box for $100 for your firewall and it is wide open outbound. But what about SQL Server? IF you need it, then it's $1,499.00. Otherwise, you don't need it. If you are a small business, you can get cripple-ware for $1.5K or actual software to run your business for $2-4K. Under the first scenario you are setting yourself up for failure and under the second, you have invested just a little more money but have primed your business for growth. And if you are such a cash-strapped business that you cannot afford the extra grand or two, then you should probably be looking at free software. Put a Linux box up, done. It's cost $0.00. And, just for fun, 2 MCP exams, ~$250 and an MCSP license ~$2000.00. So again, for just a few extra (hundreds) of dollars you get lots and lots and lots of actual software versus cripple-ware. So where is the business case for SBS? There isn't one. It is for closed-minded, all I know is Microsoft, lazy people that do not think far enough ahead to keep them from running into closed doors. Installing SBS is setting yourself up for failure, period. I have seen it time and time again. It is Microsoft cripple-ware, plain and simple. You get what you pay for and you get what you
