RE: The SEC is killing me.
Rick, KVS vault can archive the Journal automatically as it is placed in there, so you don't build a massive Journal email size. Then use KVS with its indexing feature to fully searchable emails (including inside attachments). Cheers Paul Standards are like toothbrushes, everyone wants one but not yours -Original Message- From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 16 January 2003 00:32 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me. Google is your friend... Search phrases like 'SEC Compiant email' aren't that hard to conjure. OK, I'll play nice: http://www.tumbleweed.com/en/industries/financial_services/ http://www.optical.com/ You could probably configure http://www.ixos.com or http://www.kvault.com to meet the needs as well. Gary -Original Message- From: Clemens, Rick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 19:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me. That was also discussed as a solution but here is why we said no to that one: In one scenario the SEC requested all e-mails from 7 individuals relating to insider trading from a specific period of 7 days. Now if we utilized the Back-up scenario we would have had to do 3 different restores (because the users were spread across 3 different sites and then exmerge the data into 7 different PST'sbut what if we have some smart users here and not only did they delete the message but the removed it from the deleted items retention? A backup won't catch that.Not so far fetched. The Journal is mutch easier to manage from our perspective its just difficult to search. -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 5:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: The SEC is killing me. Just have a 90-day backup tape retention policy. - Original Message - From: Clemens, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 5:05 PM Subject: The SEC is killing me. Mixed Exchange 5.5 SP4 / Exchange 2000 SP3 100% Active Directory 100% Windows 2000 Advanced Server SP4 Our Legal and Security department wants us to provide the ability to access every e-mail the company sends or receives for a period of 90 days to satisfy certain SEC requirements. The original plan was to Journal everything into a mailbox using an Exchange 5.5 server. It worked in so far as all the mail went to the mailbox...but...After it got over 100 messages outlook didn't do a very good job searching it. So we moved the Journal to Exchange 2000 and are Indexing it. With 50 messages so far Outlook searches it pretty fast. So far so good. I guess my questions iswhat is everyone else out there doing to satisfy SEC requirements for Electronic Documents Retention? Is there a better way? Or Better Software? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** The information contained in this message or any of its attachments may be confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). Any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited without the express permission of the sender. The views expressed in this email are those of the individual and not necessarily those of Sony or Sony affiliated companies. Sony email is for business use only. This email and any response may be monitored by Sony United Kingdom Limited. (6) *** _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives:
RE: The SEC is killing me.
Craig, You remembered Smartware and Smartware II (or was that Smartware plus a bit), like that product as it was one of the first. Earned me £££'s doing macros work. Loved it for that. Cheers Paul Standards are like toothbrushes, everyone wants one but not yours -Original Message- From: Dupler, Craig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 16 January 2003 01:34 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me. This will not help you with your SEC problem. It's just a musing and is merely to suggest that no audit technique is fool proof. I think that any system that you can design, a clever person can get around. Let me suggest a scenario from back in the days when I was working on virus delivery techniques and counter measures. The key to this particular almost impossible to detect nefarious message delivery technique would be to send a message to an external mailbox that had a client running against it with in-box rules enabled. The client could parse the message and execute a script or even an external program that would generate another message, which could be sent to any smtp address (or in the case of a virus, do nefarious things on its own local network). So let's say I send a one word message to my home mailbox that says hi. That could trigger a script that sends a message to tell someone to sell. Another script triggered by dinner tonight could trigger a script that generates the buy message. You get the idea. The offending message itself can be as simple or complex but apparently harmless cipher that you could imagine. It could even be embedded in a pattern that looks like I'm sending a daily (or better yet, apparently random and occasional) note commenting on tonight's menu, with an if message text contains filter at the other end. A hindered word note that contained the phrase rare steak could be the trigger. The to address is not that of the ultimate recipient, and the instruction in a form that you could detect is beyond the reach of your archives and searches. There reality is, that you simply cannot filter for this sort of thing in your archives. You can find someone that is being stupid or careless, but not someone that is cunning and deliberate. The extent to which variations on this technique can be used is frightening. Consider what a batch file on a DOS machine could do, in terms of generating an Assembly language program by having VB Script simply write stings from an Excel or Word document to a text file. The VB Script does not even have to travel with the Office document, but can simply be running on the machine on the receiving end. Such a trigger can be hidden behind layer upon layer of isolating techniques. The initial trigger instruction does not have to be sent via SMTP. A FAX to something like a SatisFAXtion modem or a call to an IVR system listening for a specific DMTF sequence that would not be recorded by your phone system can do it. A web site can do it. Web mail to your home smtp address can do it. A cellular call . . . You get the idea. Every link will leave some tracks, but those tracks can be incomplete and look very harmless. Back in the 80's before Microsoft Office became the dominant office suite, there was a product called Smartware by a small company in Lenexa, Kansas that was later purchased by Informix and destroyed. Smartware had the equivalent of VBA in all of its modules, and it had a communications module. The second version of the package even had PEEK and POKE instructions. Imagine what you could do with that today in and administrative security context on a Win2K machine in an Internet world. Nedry (a transposition of nerdy) is still out there. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 4:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: The SEC is killing me. There are a number of archival solutions out there. Some of them are listed at www.mail-resources.com in addition to the ones Gary mentioned. Contact me offline, I might have some other ideas. On 1/15/03 17:05, Clemens, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mixed Exchange 5.5 SP4 / Exchange 2000 SP3 100% Active Directory 100% Windows 2000 Advanced Server SP4 Our Legal and Security department wants us to provide the ability to access every e-mail the company sends or receives for a period of 90 days to satisfy certain SEC requirements. The original plan was to Journal everything into a mailbox using an Exchange 5.5 server. It worked in so far as all the mail went to the mailbox...but...After it got over 100 messages outlook didn't do a very good job searching it. So we moved the Journal to Exchange 2000 and are Indexing it. With 50 messages so far Outlook searches it pretty fast. So far so good. I guess my questions iswhat is everyone else out there doing to satisfy SEC requirements for Electronic Documents Retention? Is there a better way? Or Better Software?
RE: Accept only Encrypted MAPI connections
Disclaimer.. I'm working on it... I can't stand it either. ... I want to block unencrypted because I don't want unencrypted Outlook connections going over the internet.. Before you propose a VPN... it breaks connections and is very unstable.. We have it and use it, but want to drop it. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: January 15, 2003 5:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Accept only Encrypted MAPI connections Why would you want to? And if you did, would you then be able to use a shorter sig/disclaimer? On 1/15/03 5:20, Andrea Coppini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I just found out how to encrypt Outlook Exchange communication (ye I know it's simple, but I just couldn't see the checkbox...I guess it's GUI Dyslexia or something) Now I want to block all UNENCRYPTED communication, so Outlook MUST be set to encrypt, otherwise it won't connect. Andrea Coppini +356 79 ANDREA (263732) [EMAIL PROTECTED] EMPOWER PEOPLE - THE WORLD IN YOUR HAND iWG (iWORLD GROUP) is a global e-mobile company creating, building and growing new businesses. iWG founders are pioneers in creating multi-billion dollar mobile and Internet businesses in Europe, Asia and the US. The Global Partners include the shareholders Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, Hikari Tsushin, McCaw, PaineWebber/UBS, The Dolphins' Trust, Perikles Trust and the iAA Advisory Network. www.iWG.info www.countryprofiler.com/iWG Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Virus activity
Is anyone else out there noticing a higher level of virus activity in the last week or so? Our gateway scanner has been catching an increasing number of viruses over the last week. I am also seeing a few that we haven't seen in quite a while. I am not concerned, just curious if others have noticed this also. -Ryan Start of year would make a good time release a new virus. People get back from the Christmas holidays and it can take a couple of days to get back in the swing in things. Also be on the look out for virii triggered on specific dates (eg. a Valentines Day virus) It's sad fact of life that some people have nothing better to do than write malicious code. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Very) Delayed delivery
I just received an email from a customer saying she was worried about emails not arriving. This was sent on 12/6 and just arrived today - 1/16. They have an Exchange 2000 SP3 box forwarding to a Trend InterScan Virus Wall which is using DNS to send emails. I know both boxes have the correct time on them so I'm stumped how this message could have bounced around so long. Any ideas? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (Very) Delayed delivery
Information in the headers.. If my memory serves me right, June was the time of one of the large virus outbreaks no? if so then the messages might have been sitting at someones queueu (AV). A problem I've seen on a Exchange box was that the DNS could not resolve the domain and the message stayed in the queue until the connection was up and the domain was resolved.. Since their connection wasn't very good they had this quite often. IF your customer still has this problem you may want to use message tracking and uw SMTP loggings to gather more information. --B. At 07:03 16-01-2003 -0500, you wrote: I just received an email from a customer saying she was worried about emails not arriving. This was sent on 12/6 and just arrived today - 1/16. They have an Exchange 2000 SP3 box forwarding to a Trend InterScan Virus Wall which is using DNS to send emails. I know both boxes have the correct time on them so I'm stumped how this message could have bounced around so long. Any ideas? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Ex 5.5 Directory Import help
Certain multivalued fields can also have individual entries removed, but its tricky to get the syntax correct. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Parrnelli GS11 Ben T [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Ex 5.5 Directory Import help OK, thanks for elaborating. Ben Parrnelli Network Administrator Comm Data Directorate MAGTF Training Command 29 Palms, CA 92278 -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 11:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Ex 5.5 Directory Import help Default behavior is to append multivalued fields, not overwrite. So ~DEL is necessary to clear it out first. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Parrnelli GS11 Ben T [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Ex 5.5 Directory Import help Why would he not be able to import the csv with the required addresses only or the field empty without using ~DEL? I've done this several times when removing other addresses and other fields and have had a problem. Yet. Thanks. Ben Parrnelli Network Administrator Comm Data Directorate MAGTF Training Command 29 Palms, CA 92278 -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 8:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Ex 5.5 Directory Import help There is no way to delete just the SMTP addresses. What you have to do is export all the addresses first and massage the data to delete the SMTP addresses, then import it back. You'll need two lines for each object in the import file. The first will have ~DEL (without the quotes) in the E-Mail Addresses and Secondary-Proxy-Addresses attributes, then the second line adds back all the addresses except the SMTP addresses. However, I'm not sure all of this is really what you want. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Lloyd, D (Dave) Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 8:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Ex 5.5 Directory Import help Hi all, With Exchange 5.5 SP4, what is the method of removing all SMTP addresses in bulk - ie using Directory Import? I've been given a csv by our HO with the entry ~DELSMTP: but all it gives me is errors on import. A google search seems to bring me stuff in foreign languages. The reason behing this request is that we are in the middle of migrating to E2K. The dist lists have been created and populated in 2K already. Now we are ready to hide the E55 ones and replicate the 2K ones back as custom recipients. I think we need to remove the SMTP address in order to have it in the custom recipient pointing to 2K. Since HO don't wake up for another few hours I hoped to get insight here. (And yes, this is in a lab first.) Thanks Dave == De informatie opgenomen in dit bericht kan vertrouwelijk zijn en is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Indien u dit bericht onterecht ontvangt wordt u verzocht de inhoud niet te gebruiken en de afzender direct te informeren door het bericht te retourneren. == The information contained in this message may be confidential and is intended to be exclusively for the addressee. Should you receive this message unintentionally, please do not use the contents herein and notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. == _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Backup onto LTO and compression question.
Tricky question. I run DLT7000s, which are 35/70GB drives. In general, I get enough compression to hit about 60-62GB on the tape, which works out to be around 1.7:1 compression. YMMV -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Pfefferkorn, Pete (PFEFFEPE) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 3:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Backup onto LTO and compression question. This might be somewhat of a vague question. We current have a DellPowervault LTO 110T backup tape drive on our primary Exchange Server. It will back up 100 Gig non-compressed or 200 Gig compressed. Does anyone know the maximum size an Exchange DB can be if you use compression on the tape? I'm not sure how well the Exchange DB will compress. Pete Pfefferkorn Senior Systems Engineer/Mail Administrator University of Cincinnati 51 Goodman Street Cincinnati, OH 45221 Phone - (513) 556-9076 Fax - (513) 556-2042 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IMSS SMTP Server Question
From the previous use of reverse DNS lookups, I think its safe to say that about 25% of companies, including some who should know better, have misconfigured DNS entries. We found it to be more trouble than it saved - the only spam you'll consistently stop with it is that which originates from dial up connections and probably some DSL/Cable Modem pools, but not always. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Clemens, Rick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 6:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: IMSS SMTP Server Question IMSS which is the next version of Trend Micro's Virus Wall provides the ability to do reverse DNS lookups. It is my understanding that this will help reduce SPAM from bogus addresses but will require more CPU resources to accomplish. My question is is anyone else using Reverse DNS Lookup's? And what happens when a companies SMTP server is NAT'd behind a firewall and port 25 is just passed on to the internal SMTP server? The problem being that their External MX record will point to the Firewall but the SMTP packet will reflect the actual SMTP server name internally..When My SMTP server tries to reverse DNS lookup on itit will not be able to resolve and My company will not be able to send e-mail back and forth with this company. Am I stating what happens correctly? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Accept only Encrypted MAPI connections
If the server is Win2k, what about using IPSec connections to the server? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 5:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Accept only Encrypted MAPI connections Disclaimer.. I'm working on it... I can't stand it either. ... I want to block unencrypted because I don't want unencrypted Outlook connections going over the internet.. Before you propose a VPN... it breaks connections and is very unstable.. We have it and use it, but want to drop it. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: January 15, 2003 5:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Accept only Encrypted MAPI connections Why would you want to? And if you did, would you then be able to use a shorter sig/disclaimer? On 1/15/03 5:20, Andrea Coppini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I just found out how to encrypt Outlook Exchange communication (ye I know it's simple, but I just couldn't see the checkbox...I guess it's GUI Dyslexia or something) Now I want to block all UNENCRYPTED communication, so Outlook MUST be set to encrypt, otherwise it won't connect. Andrea Coppini +356 79 ANDREA (263732) [EMAIL PROTECTED] EMPOWER PEOPLE - THE WORLD IN YOUR HAND iWG (iWORLD GROUP) is a global e-mobile company creating, building and growing new businesses. iWG founders are pioneers in creating multi-billion dollar mobile and Internet businesses in Europe, Asia and the US. The Global Partners include the shareholders Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, Hikari Tsushin, McCaw, PaineWebber/UBS, The Dolphins' Trust, Perikles Trust and the iAA Advisory Network. www.iWG.info www.countryprofiler.com/iWG Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Virus activity
Actaully, apparently December 25th and January 1 were great times to release viruses. At least one of the largest AV vendors sent an email to all their customers telling them flat out that their virus labs would be outright closed on those days. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Busby, Jacob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 5:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Virus activity Is anyone else out there noticing a higher level of virus activity in the last week or so? Our gateway scanner has been catching an increasing number of viruses over the last week. I am also seeing a few that we haven't seen in quite a while. I am not concerned, just curious if others have noticed this also. -Ryan Start of year would make a good time release a new virus. People get back from the Christmas holidays and it can take a couple of days to get back in the swing in things. Also be on the look out for virii triggered on specific dates (eg. a Valentines Day virus) It's sad fact of life that some people have nothing better to do than write malicious code. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: (Very) Delayed delivery
You're reading it as European style dates, but he wrote them American style: Dec 16 and Jan 6 -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: B. van Ouwerkerk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 7:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: (Very) Delayed delivery Information in the headers.. If my memory serves me right, June was the time of one of the large virus outbreaks no? if so then the messages might have been sitting at someones queueu (AV). A problem I've seen on a Exchange box was that the DNS could not resolve the domain and the message stayed in the queue until the connection was up and the domain was resolved.. Since their connection wasn't very good they had this quite often. IF your customer still has this problem you may want to use message tracking and uw SMTP loggings to gather more information. --B. At 07:03 16-01-2003 -0500, you wrote: I just received an email from a customer saying she was worried about emails not arriving. This was sent on 12/6 and just arrived today - 1/16. They have an Exchange 2000 SP3 box forwarding to a Trend InterScan Virus Wall which is using DNS to send emails. I know both boxes have the correct time on them so I'm stumped how this message could have bounced around so long. Any ideas? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MSExchange IS Mailbox Send Queue Size High
OK, I thought that might have been the issue, but I'm now at 55. I don't think our users use this option much so I am kind of curious to why its still showing a buildup. What other options do I have to find out what is in this queue? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 3:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: MSExchange IS Mailbox Send Queue Size High I thought that might be it, but I'm a bit sluggish this morning (all that perfmon testing starts to run together after a while as well). On 1/13/03 11:48, Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why yes it does So I guess I am looking at deferred messages then. Thanks Chris. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 12:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: MSExchange IS Mailbox Send Queue Size High My mind is running 2 cups of coffee short this morning, but if you send a message with a deferred delivery time, does the queue increase to 46? On 1/13/03 10:31, Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exchange 2k SP3... I was just looking at Perfmon and noticed the queue is steady at 45 and has remained there. I don't have any other high traffic going on right now. All other queues are low. Any idea why it is high? Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exchange AS/400
I was also wrong in that this is exchange 2000. That would be whom I am sending it to. For example if I were sending it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] when they get it in the to address it has [EMAIL PROTECTED] When sending from [EMAIL PROTECTED] it sends fine. But when someone reply to the e-mail address it has [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wow even looking at it more it has a underscore between the name when it should be a period. Here is the example of the e-mail I am getting. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 9:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Should be --Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorry if I was confusing. TIA, Brett -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:59 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange AS/400 So where's lakeco.com? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Brett Wesoloski Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 11:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange AS/400 SMTP [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 10:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange AS/400 What do your recipient policies say? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Brett Wesoloski Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 8:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange AS/400 Exchange 5.5 A couple quick questions. I am having a problem with my reply to address. It seems to be putting .exchange after everyone's e-mail address. For example: my e-mail address should be [EMAIL PROTECTED] but I am getting for a reply to address [EMAIL PROTECTED] The send to address are very strange when you get them as well. For example If I were sending an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] the to address would have [EMAIL PROTECTED] The other question I have is if it is possible to setup exchange to act as a remote e-mail server. For example, I want to e-mail from the AS/400, it has its own SMTP service, but you don't know if the mail has been rejected or not. I want to see if I can use exchange someway to help out. There is not AS/400 version of Outlook and I can't find any information on this. Any thoughts on either of these? TIA, Brett _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The SEC is killing me.
Ahh, the endless quest for compliance. We are looking at 3 products : Tumbleweed's Secure Archive, KVS, and EAS. Of the three, I like KVS the best for a number of reasons: ease of use, very powerful features, it has a very nice interface - perfect for the compliance office and the reps have been great. However, we are using Tumbleweed's Secure Mail feature now for content filtering etc, so it will probably wind up being cheaper and easier for us to simply plug in the Secure Archive component. Remember also that compliance means that all the archiving must be stored on non-writable, i.e.. optical media, so simply keeping copies of emails on a hard drive is probably not enough. Your lawyers will have to make that call whether that meets the requirements. All together, the archiving solutions run anywhere from 20-40K which typically includes everything: installation, training, server, software etc... P.S. Are you only required to keep messages for 90 days? That seems a bit short. - Original Message - From: Clemens, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 6:05 PM Subject: The SEC is killing me. Mixed Exchange 5.5 SP4 / Exchange 2000 SP3 100% Active Directory 100% Windows 2000 Advanced Server SP4 Our Legal and Security department wants us to provide the ability to access every e-mail the company sends or receives for a period of 90 days to satisfy certain SEC requirements. The original plan was to Journal everything into a mailbox using an Exchange 5.5 server. It worked in so far as all the mail went to the mailbox...but...After it got over 100 messages outlook didn't do a very good job searching it. So we moved the Journal to Exchange 2000 and are Indexing it. With 50 messages so far Outlook searches it pretty fast. So far so good. I guess my questions iswhat is everyone else out there doing to satisfy SEC requirements for Electronic Documents Retention? Is there a better way? Or Better Software? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Accept only Encrypted MAPI connections
Too complex to configure and mantain. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: January 16, 2003 1:30 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Accept only Encrypted MAPI connections If the server is Win2k, what about using IPSec connections to the server? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 5:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Accept only Encrypted MAPI connections Disclaimer.. I'm working on it... I can't stand it either. ... I want to block unencrypted because I don't want unencrypted Outlook connections going over the internet.. Before you propose a VPN... it breaks connections and is very unstable.. We have it and use it, but want to drop it. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: January 15, 2003 5:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Accept only Encrypted MAPI connections Why would you want to? And if you did, would you then be able to use a shorter sig/disclaimer? On 1/15/03 5:20, Andrea Coppini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I just found out how to encrypt Outlook Exchange communication (ye I know it's simple, but I just couldn't see the checkbox...I guess it's GUI Dyslexia or something) Now I want to block all UNENCRYPTED communication, so Outlook MUST be set to encrypt, otherwise it won't connect. Andrea Coppini +356 79 ANDREA (263732) [EMAIL PROTECTED] EMPOWER PEOPLE - THE WORLD IN YOUR HAND iWG (iWORLD GROUP) is a global e-mobile company creating, building and growing new businesses. iWG founders are pioneers in creating multi-billion dollar mobile and Internet businesses in Europe, Asia and the US. The Global Partners include the shareholders Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, Hikari Tsushin, McCaw, PaineWebber/UBS, The Dolphins' Trust, Perikles Trust and the iAA Advisory Network. www.iWG.info www.countryprofiler.com/iWG Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: (Very) Delayed delivery
Hmmm right then it's still way to long, he should still consider to use the loggings.. --B. At 07:32 16-01-2003 -0500, you wrote: You're reading it as European style dates, but he wrote them American style: Dec 16 and Jan 6 -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: B. van Ouwerkerk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 7:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: (Very) Delayed delivery Information in the headers.. If my memory serves me right, June was the time of one of the large virus outbreaks no? if so then the messages might have been sitting at someones queueu (AV). A problem I've seen on a Exchange box was that the DNS could not resolve the domain and the message stayed in the queue until the connection was up and the domain was resolved.. Since their connection wasn't very good they had this quite often. IF your customer still has this problem you may want to use message tracking and uw SMTP loggings to gather more information. --B. At 07:03 16-01-2003 -0500, you wrote: I just received an email from a customer saying she was worried about emails not arriving. This was sent on 12/6 and just arrived today - 1/16. They have an Exchange 2000 SP3 box forwarding to a Trend InterScan Virus Wall which is using DNS to send emails. I know both boxes have the correct time on them so I'm stumped how this message could have bounced around so long. Any ideas? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Accept only Encrypted MAPI connections
Its one setting on the server, configurable via group policy. The only caveat is that all clients need to be Win2k or greater? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Accept only Encrypted MAPI connections Too complex to configure and mantain. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: January 16, 2003 1:30 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Accept only Encrypted MAPI connections If the server is Win2k, what about using IPSec connections to the server? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 5:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Accept only Encrypted MAPI connections Disclaimer.. I'm working on it... I can't stand it either. ... I want to block unencrypted because I don't want unencrypted Outlook connections going over the internet.. Before you propose a VPN... it breaks connections and is very unstable.. We have it and use it, but want to drop it. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: January 15, 2003 5:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Accept only Encrypted MAPI connections Why would you want to? And if you did, would you then be able to use a shorter sig/disclaimer? On 1/15/03 5:20, Andrea Coppini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I just found out how to encrypt Outlook Exchange communication (ye I know it's simple, but I just couldn't see the checkbox...I guess it's GUI Dyslexia or something) Now I want to block all UNENCRYPTED communication, so Outlook MUST be set to encrypt, otherwise it won't connect. Andrea Coppini +356 79 ANDREA (263732) [EMAIL PROTECTED] EMPOWER PEOPLE - THE WORLD IN YOUR HAND iWG (iWORLD GROUP) is a global e-mobile company creating, building and growing new businesses. iWG founders are pioneers in creating multi-billion dollar mobile and Internet businesses in Europe, Asia and the US. The Global Partners include the shareholders Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, Hikari Tsushin, McCaw, PaineWebber/UBS, The Dolphins' Trust, Perikles Trust and the iAA Advisory Network. www.iWG.info www.countryprofiler.com/iWG Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Accept only Encrypted MAPI connections
Another alternative you could use is with ISA server and the new feature pack they have out which will do exactly what you want. See http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/featurepack1/email.asp for more info. Mike - Original Message - From: Andrea Coppini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 1:59 AM Subject: RE: Accept only Encrypted MAPI connections Disclaimer.. I'm working on it... I can't stand it either. ... I want to block unencrypted because I don't want unencrypted Outlook connections going over the internet.. Before you propose a VPN... it breaks connections and is very unstable.. We have it and use it, but want to drop it. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: January 15, 2003 5:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Accept only Encrypted MAPI connections Why would you want to? And if you did, would you then be able to use a shorter sig/disclaimer? On 1/15/03 5:20, Andrea Coppini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I just found out how to encrypt Outlook Exchange communication (ye I know it's simple, but I just couldn't see the checkbox...I guess it's GUI Dyslexia or something) Now I want to block all UNENCRYPTED communication, so Outlook MUST be set to encrypt, otherwise it won't connect. Andrea Coppini +356 79 ANDREA (263732) [EMAIL PROTECTED] EMPOWER PEOPLE - THE WORLD IN YOUR HAND iWG (iWORLD GROUP) is a global e-mobile company creating, building and growing new businesses. iWG founders are pioneers in creating multi-billion dollar mobile and Internet businesses in Europe, Asia and the US. The Global Partners include the shareholders Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, Hikari Tsushin, McCaw, PaineWebber/UBS, The Dolphins' Trust, Perikles Trust and the iAA Advisory Network. www.iWG.info www.countryprofiler.com/iWG Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: The SEC is killing me.
I don't have any SEC requirements, here its all HIPPA. And their big thing so far is separation of duties and checks and balances. Pretty soon if I need to create a mailbox I'm going to need permission from the security group. :( -Original Message- From: Clemens, Rick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 4:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: The SEC is killing me. Mixed Exchange 5.5 SP4 / Exchange 2000 SP3 100% Active Directory 100% Windows 2000 Advanced Server SP4 Our Legal and Security department wants us to provide the ability to access every e-mail the company sends or receives for a period of 90 days to satisfy certain SEC requirements. The original plan was to Journal everything into a mailbox using an Exchange 5.5 server. It worked in so far as all the mail went to the mailbox...but...After it got over 100 messages outlook didn't do a very good job searching it. So we moved the Journal to Exchange 2000 and are Indexing it. With 50 messages so far Outlook searches it pretty fast. So far so good. I guess my questions iswhat is everyone else out there doing to satisfy SEC requirements for Electronic Documents Retention? Is there a better way? Or Better Software? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange 2000
Hello Group, two errors/questions about a exchange 2000 cluster: 1) Owa is only possible to connect to one of the two nodes using the netbios name. http:\\nodeA\exchange or http:\\nodeB\exchange How to connect owa using the netbios name of the shared cluster ressource? http:\\cluster\exchange?? 2) Logoff of the mailbox terminates with an error: Http: 404 page not found for http:\\nodeA\exchange\logoff.asp Any advise for this questions? Thom _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: The SEC is killing me.
Where are you getting the separation of duties part, Eric? I haven't seen anything like that. Although there's enough there (in HIPAA) that is to turn my hair greyer than it already is. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me. I don't have any SEC requirements, here its all HIPPA. And their big thing so far is separation of duties and checks and balances. Pretty soon if I need to create a mailbox I'm going to need permission from the security group. :( -Original Message- From: Clemens, Rick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 4:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: The SEC is killing me. Mixed Exchange 5.5 SP4 / Exchange 2000 SP3 100% Active Directory 100% Windows 2000 Advanced Server SP4 Our Legal and Security department wants us to provide the ability to access every e-mail the company sends or receives for a period of 90 days to satisfy certain SEC requirements. The original plan was to Journal everything into a mailbox using an Exchange 5.5 server. It worked in so far as all the mail went to the mailbox...but...After it got over 100 messages outlook didn't do a very good job searching it. So we moved the Journal to Exchange 2000 and are Indexing it. With 50 messages so far Outlook searches it pretty fast. So far so good. I guess my questions iswhat is everyone else out there doing to satisfy SEC requirements for Electronic Documents Retention? Is there a better way? Or Better Software? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange 5.5 sp3, OWA IIS5 and windows 2000
Hello, I'm experiencing problems with OWA. First some techincal specs. - IIS 5 - Exchange 5.5 SP3 - Exchange runs on different NT4 server - IIS5 and OWA runs on Windows 2000 server - OWA SP3 language packs installed (DUT and USA) When starting OWA from browser (IE5.5 and IE6) i get the message below. I have experienced wirh the NTFS rights but this is not the problem (you should get another message then). ** The page cannot be displayed There is a problem with the page you are trying to reach and it cannot be displayed. Please try the following: Open the 10.1.1.40 home page, and then look for links to the information you want. Click the Refresh button, or try again later. Click Search to look for information on the Internet. You can also see a list of related sites. HTTP 500 - Internal server error Internet Explorer ** Someone has an idea/ regards, Bob Petra _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OWA not working properly behind ISA Server
Hello, This is a very weird problem. Presently, our OWA Server is being published behind our ISA Firewall Server - and it works like a charm. I just got more IP addresses from my provider, and OWA doesn't come up all the way any longer. This is very confusing. What makes this problem more complex, as this topic has a lot of crossover of products. I also posted this problem on the ISA Server list that I belong to. I am not getting much of a response - and that could be, that nobody knows how to quite answer it. They are probably thinking it's more of an Exchange OWA issue - but I think most of it has to do with ISA Server. All the same publishing rules still apply, and I also configured the main ISA Server to use dedicated listeners for the Web stuff which didn't work, so then I tried using All IP's for the listeners. Still, the same result. I know this may sound like gibberish for most of you, but surely there must be some people on this list, that are publishing their Exchange Servers behind an ISA box. I am just running out of options here, and I just don't understand how adding IP's can cause something like this to happen: The page loads fine - still prompts for the Users Name, Password and Domain, then allows them to proceed further, then loads populates the treeview, then it shows all the folders, and then just stops - with it just showing loading... in the window pane on the right side of screen. Everything else, is there - like normal - it just doesn't show the message list. ALSO, the web page generates an error. When you double-click the Exclamation Point Icon in the lower left-hand corner of the browser window, you get the following error: Problems with this web page might prevent it from ... blah blah... And the Specific Error Code is: Line: 1713 Char: 3 Error: Unknown name Code: 0 URL: http://outlook.anderson.net/exchweb/controls/ctrl_View20.htc Could somebody let me know, if they have seen this before - and what the fix may be? I am running Windows 2000 Server SP3, Exchange 2000 SP3 and ISA Server SP1. Please help! - Thanks, Mike _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: The SEC is killing me.
That would depend on who the contact is with. If you are talking about SEC Rule 240.17a-4 then you may need to retain conversations. The real difference to me is that e-mail is legally considered a document and that IM is no different from a telephone conversation. Should we wire tap all the phones and record them for violations? Doing a google search under SEC Rule 240.17a-4 will pop up a lot of information on the subject. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 7:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: The SEC is killing me. I asked the lawyers here that same question and havent gotten a response yet if it is required. If it isnt now, I imagine it will be very soon. - Original Message - From: Ed Crowley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 11:50 PM Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me. What are you doing about instant messaging? Don't you have to keep all IM transactions as well? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dupler, Craig Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 6:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me. This will not help you with your SEC problem. It's just a musing and is merely to suggest that no audit technique is fool proof. I think that any system that you can design, a clever person can get around. Let me suggest a scenario from back in the days when I was working on virus delivery techniques and counter measures. The key to this particular almost impossible to detect nefarious message delivery technique would be to send a message to an external mailbox that had a client running against it with in-box rules enabled. The client could parse the message and execute a script or even an external program that would generate another message, which could be sent to any smtp address (or in the case of a virus, do nefarious things on its own local network). So let's say I send a one word message to my home mailbox that says hi. That could trigger a script that sends a message to tell someone to sell. Another script triggered by dinner tonight could trigger a script that generates the buy message. You get the idea. The offending message itself can be as simple or complex but apparently harmless cipher that you could imagine. It could even be embedded in a pattern that looks like I'm sending a daily (or better yet, apparently random and occasional) note commenting on tonight's menu, with an if message text contains filter at the other end. A hindered word note that contained the phrase rare steak could be the trigger. The to address is not that of the ultimate recipient, and the instruction in a form that you could detect is beyond the reach of your archives and searches. There reality is, that you simply cannot filter for this sort of thing in your archives. You can find someone that is being stupid or careless, but not someone that is cunning and deliberate. The extent to which variations on this technique can be used is frightening. Consider what a batch file on a DOS machine could do, in terms of generating an Assembly language program by having VB Script simply write stings from an Excel or Word document to a text file. The VB Script does not even have to travel with the Office document, but can simply be running on the machine on the receiving end. Such a trigger can be hidden behind layer upon layer of isolating techniques. The initial trigger instruction does not have to be sent via SMTP. A FAX to something like a SatisFAXtion modem or a call to an IVR system listening for a specific DMTF sequence that would not be recorded by your phone system can do it. A web site can do it. Web mail to your home smtp address can do it. A cellular call . . . You get the idea. Every link will leave some tracks, but those tracks can be incomplete and look very harmless. Back in the 80's before Microsoft Office became the dominant office suite, there was a product called Smartware by a small company in Lenexa, Kansas that was later purchased by Informix and destroyed. Smartware had the equivalent of VBA in all of its modules, and it had a communications module. The second version of the package even had PEEK and POKE instructions. Imagine what you could do with that today in and administrative security context on a Win2K machine in an Internet world. Nedry (a transposition of nerdy) is still out there. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 4:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: The SEC is killing me. There are a number of archival solutions out there.
Re: Accept only Encrypted MAPI connections
I use VPN all the time and rarely if ever have problems with it dropping... In fact I'm trying to remember back to the last time I had that problem and it's been several years or more. So, dropping it because it's unstable seems to me to be a issue of implementation rather than technology based on the information provided. Feel free to take a look at your current RPC traffic between Outlook and the Exchange server without that checkbox marked and get back to me at your leisure on how easy it is to read. At that point we can discuss the dichotomy of trying to secure message traffic, while opening ports which reduce the overall security of your implementation dramatically. -- Chris Scharff, MVP-Exchange MessageOne Emergency Messaging System: http://www.messageone.com/EMS.asp Free Custom OWA Screens:http://www.messageone.com/m1owa/index.asp On 1/16/03 3:59, Andrea Coppini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Disclaimer.. I'm working on it... I can't stand it either. ... I want to block unencrypted because I don't want unencrypted Outlook connections going over the internet.. Before you propose a VPN... it breaks connections and is very unstable.. We have it and use it, but want to drop it. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: January 15, 2003 5:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Accept only Encrypted MAPI connections Why would you want to? And if you did, would you then be able to use a shorter sig/disclaimer? On 1/15/03 5:20, Andrea Coppini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I just found out how to encrypt Outlook Exchange communication (ye I know it's simple, but I just couldn't see the checkbox...I guess it's GUI Dyslexia or something) Now I want to block all UNENCRYPTED communication, so Outlook MUST be set to encrypt, otherwise it won't connect. Andrea Coppini +356 79 ANDREA (263732) [EMAIL PROTECTED] EMPOWER PEOPLE - THE WORLD IN YOUR HAND iWG (iWORLD GROUP) is a global e-mobile company creating, building and growing new businesses. iWG founders are pioneers in creating multi-billion dollar mobile and Internet businesses in Europe, Asia and the US. The Global Partners include the shareholders Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, Hikari Tsushin, McCaw, PaineWebber/UBS, The Dolphins' Trust, Perikles Trust and the iAA Advisory Network. www.iWG.info www.countryprofiler.com/iWG Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (Very) Delayed delivery
Look at the headers of the message. On 1/16/03 6:03, Jeffrey Dubyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just received an email from a customer saying she was worried about emails not arriving. This was sent on 12/6 and just arrived today - 1/16. They have an Exchange 2000 SP3 box forwarding to a Trend InterScan Virus Wall which is using DNS to send emails. I know both boxes have the correct time on them so I'm stumped how this message could have bounced around so long. Any ideas? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MSExchange IS Mailbox Send Queue Size High
Are users reporting missing or delayed mail? I think PSS might have a tool or two to enumerate these messages. On 1/16/03 6:36, Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, I thought that might have been the issue, but I'm now at 55. I don't think our users use this option much so I am kind of curious to why its still showing a buildup. What other options do I have to find out what is in this queue? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 3:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: MSExchange IS Mailbox Send Queue Size High I thought that might be it, but I'm a bit sluggish this morning (all that perfmon testing starts to run together after a while as well). On 1/13/03 11:48, Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why yes it does So I guess I am looking at deferred messages then. Thanks Chris. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 12:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: MSExchange IS Mailbox Send Queue Size High My mind is running 2 cups of coffee short this morning, but if you send a message with a deferred delivery time, does the queue increase to 46? On 1/13/03 10:31, Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exchange 2k SP3... I was just looking at Perfmon and noticed the queue is steady at 45 and has remained there. I don't have any other high traffic going on right now. All other queues are low. Any idea why it is high? Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MSExchange IS Mailbox Send Queue Size High
No, email is being delivered fine. I'll follow up on that tool. Thanks Chris. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: MSExchange IS Mailbox Send Queue Size High Are users reporting missing or delayed mail? I think PSS might have a tool or two to enumerate these messages. On 1/16/03 6:36, Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, I thought that might have been the issue, but I'm now at 55. I don't think our users use this option much so I am kind of curious to why its still showing a buildup. What other options do I have to find out what is in this queue? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 3:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: MSExchange IS Mailbox Send Queue Size High I thought that might be it, but I'm a bit sluggish this morning (all that perfmon testing starts to run together after a while as well). On 1/13/03 11:48, Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why yes it does So I guess I am looking at deferred messages then. Thanks Chris. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 12:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: MSExchange IS Mailbox Send Queue Size High My mind is running 2 cups of coffee short this morning, but if you send a message with a deferred delivery time, does the queue increase to 46? On 1/13/03 10:31, Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exchange 2k SP3... I was just looking at Perfmon and noticed the queue is steady at 45 and has remained there. I don't have any other high traffic going on right now. All other queues are low. Any idea why it is high? Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exchange AS/400
Look at the headers... And have them look at whatever non exchange servers the message is passing through. On 1/16/03 6:51, Brett Wesoloski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was also wrong in that this is exchange 2000. That would be whom I am sending it to. For example if I were sending it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] when they get it in the to address it has [EMAIL PROTECTED] When sending from [EMAIL PROTECTED] it sends fine. But when someone reply to the e-mail address it has [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wow even looking at it more it has a underscore between the name when it should be a period. Here is the example of the e-mail I am getting. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 9:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Should be --Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorry if I was confusing. TIA, Brett -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:59 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange AS/400 So where's lakeco.com? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Brett Wesoloski Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 11:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange AS/400 SMTP [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 10:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange AS/400 What do your recipient policies say? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Brett Wesoloski Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 8:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange AS/400 Exchange 5.5 A couple quick questions. I am having a problem with my reply to address. It seems to be putting .exchange after everyone's e-mail address. For example: my e-mail address should be [EMAIL PROTECTED] but I am getting for a reply to address [EMAIL PROTECTED] The send to address are very strange when you get them as well. For example If I were sending an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] the to address would have [EMAIL PROTECTED] The other question I have is if it is possible to setup exchange to act as a remote e-mail server. For example, I want to e-mail from the AS/400, it has its own SMTP service, but you don't know if the mail has been rejected or not. I want to see if I can use exchange someway to help out. There is not AS/400 version of Outlook and I can't find any information on this. Any thoughts on either of these? TIA, Brett _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: The SEC is killing me.
You know that's exactly what I told them, but our security guy's patented response is This is the direction the company is going, I'm not privy to the information apparently. I'm just being told what to do, me and my counter part are not very happy about it. -Original Message- From: Chinnery, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 7:05 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me. Where are you getting the separation of duties part, Eric? I haven't seen anything like that. Although there's enough there (in HIPAA) that is to turn my hair greyer than it already is. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me. I don't have any SEC requirements, here its all HIPPA. And their big thing so far is separation of duties and checks and balances. Pretty soon if I need to create a mailbox I'm going to need permission from the security group. :( -Original Message- From: Clemens, Rick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 4:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: The SEC is killing me. Mixed Exchange 5.5 SP4 / Exchange 2000 SP3 100% Active Directory 100% Windows 2000 Advanced Server SP4 Our Legal and Security department wants us to provide the ability to access every e-mail the company sends or receives for a period of 90 days to satisfy certain SEC requirements. The original plan was to Journal everything into a mailbox using an Exchange 5.5 server. It worked in so far as all the mail went to the mailbox...but...After it got over 100 messages outlook didn't do a very good job searching it. So we moved the Journal to Exchange 2000 and are Indexing it. With 50 messages so far Outlook searches it pretty fast. So far so good. I guess my questions iswhat is everyone else out there doing to satisfy SEC requirements for Electronic Documents Retention? Is there a better way? Or Better Software? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exchange 2000
1. Type in http:\\cluster\exchange 2. TechNet 3. Check FAQ for information on asking technical questions. On 1/16/03 7:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Group, two errors/questions about a exchange 2000 cluster: 1) Owa is only possible to connect to one of the two nodes using the netbios name. http:\\nodeA\exchange or http:\\nodeB\exchange How to connect owa using the netbios name of the shared cluster ressource? http:\\cluster\exchange?? 2) Logoff of the mailbox terminates with an error: Http: 404 page not found for http:\\nodeA\exchange\logoff.asp Any advise for this questions? Thom _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MSExchange IS Mailbox Send Queue Size High
I think there's also at least 1 KB article which talks about queue lengths in perfmon not matching actual numbers of messages queued, but don't have it handy at the moment. Can't remember exactly which queue it applies to either... Sorry. On 1/16/03 8:44, Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, email is being delivered fine. I'll follow up on that tool. Thanks Chris. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: MSExchange IS Mailbox Send Queue Size High Are users reporting missing or delayed mail? I think PSS might have a tool or two to enumerate these messages. On 1/16/03 6:36, Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, I thought that might have been the issue, but I'm now at 55. I don't think our users use this option much so I am kind of curious to why its still showing a buildup. What other options do I have to find out what is in this queue? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 3:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: MSExchange IS Mailbox Send Queue Size High I thought that might be it, but I'm a bit sluggish this morning (all that perfmon testing starts to run together after a while as well). On 1/13/03 11:48, Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why yes it does So I guess I am looking at deferred messages then. Thanks Chris. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 12:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: MSExchange IS Mailbox Send Queue Size High My mind is running 2 cups of coffee short this morning, but if you send a message with a deferred delivery time, does the queue increase to 46? On 1/13/03 10:31, Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exchange 2k SP3... I was just looking at Perfmon and noticed the queue is steady at 45 and has remained there. I don't have any other high traffic going on right now. All other queues are low. Any idea why it is high? Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: The SEC is killing me.
We don't have IM. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me. What are you doing about instant messaging? Don't you have to keep all IM transactions as well? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dupler, Craig Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 6:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me. This will not help you with your SEC problem. It's just a musing and is merely to suggest that no audit technique is fool proof. I think that any system that you can design, a clever person can get around. Let me suggest a scenario from back in the days when I was working on virus delivery techniques and counter measures. The key to this particular almost impossible to detect nefarious message delivery technique would be to send a message to an external mailbox that had a client running against it with in-box rules enabled. The client could parse the message and execute a script or even an external program that would generate another message, which could be sent to any smtp address (or in the case of a virus, do nefarious things on its own local network). So let's say I send a one word message to my home mailbox that says hi. That could trigger a script that sends a message to tell someone to sell. Another script triggered by dinner tonight could trigger a script that generates the buy message. You get the idea. The offending message itself can be as simple or complex but apparently harmless cipher that you could imagine. It could even be embedded in a pattern that looks like I'm sending a daily (or better yet, apparently random and occasional) note commenting on tonight's menu, with an if message text contains filter at the other end. A hindered word note that contained the phrase rare steak could be the trigger. The to address is not that of the ultimate recipient, and the instruction in a form that you could detect is beyond the reach of your archives and searches. There reality is, that you simply cannot filter for this sort of thing in your archives. You can find someone that is being stupid or careless, but not someone that is cunning and deliberate. The extent to which variations on this technique can be used is frightening. Consider what a batch file on a DOS machine could do, in terms of generating an Assembly language program by having VB Script simply write stings from an Excel or Word document to a text file. The VB Script does not even have to travel with the Office document, but can simply be running on the machine on the receiving end. Such a trigger can be hidden behind layer upon layer of isolating techniques. The initial trigger instruction does not have to be sent via SMTP. A FAX to something like a SatisFAXtion modem or a call to an IVR system listening for a specific DMTF sequence that would not be recorded by your phone system can do it. A web site can do it. Web mail to your home smtp address can do it. A cellular call . . . You get the idea. Every link will leave some tracks, but those tracks can be incomplete and look very harmless. Back in the 80's before Microsoft Office became the dominant office suite, there was a product called Smartware by a small company in Lenexa, Kansas that was later purchased by Informix and destroyed. Smartware had the equivalent of VBA in all of its modules, and it had a communications module. The second version of the package even had PEEK and POKE instructions. Imagine what you could do with that today in and administrative security context on a Win2K machine in an Internet world. Nedry (a transposition of nerdy) is still out there. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 4:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: The SEC is killing me. There are a number of archival solutions out there. Some of them are listed at www.mail-resources.com in addition to the ones Gary mentioned. Contact me offline, I might have some other ideas. On 1/15/03 17:05, Clemens, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mixed Exchange 5.5 SP4 / Exchange 2000 SP3 100% Active Directory 100% Windows 2000 Advanced Server SP4 Our Legal and Security department wants us to provide the ability to access every e-mail the company sends or receives for a period of 90 days to satisfy certain SEC requirements. The original plan was to Journal everything into a mailbox using an Exchange 5.5 server. It worked in so far as all the mail went to the mailbox...but...After it got over 100 messages outlook didn't do a very good job searching it. So we moved the Journal to Exchange 2000 and are Indexing it. With 50 messages so far Outlook searches it pretty fast.
RE: The SEC is killing me.
We looked at KVS vault and they wanted way too much money. -Original Message- From: Hurst, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 2:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me. Rick, KVS vault can archive the Journal automatically as it is placed in there, so you don't build a massive Journal email size. Then use KVS with its indexing feature to fully searchable emails (including inside attachments). Cheers Paul Standards are like toothbrushes, everyone wants one but not yours -Original Message- From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 16 January 2003 00:32 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me. Google is your friend... Search phrases like 'SEC Compiant email' aren't that hard to conjure. OK, I'll play nice: http://www.tumbleweed.com/en/industries/financial_services/ http://www.optical.com/ You could probably configure http://www.ixos.com or http://www.kvault.com to meet the needs as well. Gary -Original Message- From: Clemens, Rick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 19:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me. That was also discussed as a solution but here is why we said no to that one: In one scenario the SEC requested all e-mails from 7 individuals relating to insider trading from a specific period of 7 days. Now if we utilized the Back-up scenario we would have had to do 3 different restores (because the users were spread across 3 different sites and then exmerge the data into 7 different PST'sbut what if we have some smart users here and not only did they delete the message but the removed it from the deleted items retention? A backup won't catch that.Not so far fetched. The Journal is mutch easier to manage from our perspective its just difficult to search. -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 5:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: The SEC is killing me. Just have a 90-day backup tape retention policy. - Original Message - From: Clemens, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 5:05 PM Subject: The SEC is killing me. Mixed Exchange 5.5 SP4 / Exchange 2000 SP3 100% Active Directory 100% Windows 2000 Advanced Server SP4 Our Legal and Security department wants us to provide the ability to access every e-mail the company sends or receives for a period of 90 days to satisfy certain SEC requirements. The original plan was to Journal everything into a mailbox using an Exchange 5.5 server. It worked in so far as all the mail went to the mailbox...but...After it got over 100 messages outlook didn't do a very good job searching it. So we moved the Journal to Exchange 2000 and are Indexing it. With 50 messages so far Outlook searches it pretty fast. So far so good. I guess my questions iswhat is everyone else out there doing to satisfy SEC requirements for Electronic Documents Retention? Is there a better way? Or Better Software? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** The information contained in this message or any of its attachments may be confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). Any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited without the express permission of the sender. The views expressed in this email are those of the individual and not necessarily those of Sony or Sony affiliated companies. Sony email is for business use only. This email and any response may be monitored by Sony United Kingdom Limited. (6)
Re: Exchange 5.5 sp3, OWA IIS5 and windows 2000
To ad this extra IE message to my OWA problem Technical Information (for support personnel) Error Type: Microsoft VBScript runtime (0x800A01A8) Object required: 'Application(...)' /exchange/DUT/logon.asp, line 12 Browser Type: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0) Page: GET /exchange/DUT/logon.asp Time: Thursday, January 16, 2003, 3:58:36 PM More information: Microsoft Support _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: The SEC is killing me.
We are just getting started on this.You are correct 90 days is indeed short but Legal hasn't given us any other hard requirements at this time. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 6:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: The SEC is killing me. Ahh, the endless quest for compliance. We are looking at 3 products : Tumbleweed's Secure Archive, KVS, and EAS. Of the three, I like KVS the best for a number of reasons: ease of use, very powerful features, it has a very nice interface - perfect for the compliance office and the reps have been great. However, we are using Tumbleweed's Secure Mail feature now for content filtering etc, so it will probably wind up being cheaper and easier for us to simply plug in the Secure Archive component. Remember also that compliance means that all the archiving must be stored on non-writable, i.e.. optical media, so simply keeping copies of emails on a hard drive is probably not enough. Your lawyers will have to make that call whether that meets the requirements. All together, the archiving solutions run anywhere from 20-40K which typically includes everything: installation, training, server, software etc... P.S. Are you only required to keep messages for 90 days? That seems a bit short. - Original Message - From: Clemens, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 6:05 PM Subject: The SEC is killing me. Mixed Exchange 5.5 SP4 / Exchange 2000 SP3 100% Active Directory 100% Windows 2000 Advanced Server SP4 Our Legal and Security department wants us to provide the ability to access every e-mail the company sends or receives for a period of 90 days to satisfy certain SEC requirements. The original plan was to Journal everything into a mailbox using an Exchange 5.5 server. It worked in so far as all the mail went to the mailbox...but...After it got over 100 messages outlook didn't do a very good job searching it. So we moved the Journal to Exchange 2000 and are Indexing it. With 50 messages so far Outlook searches it pretty fast. So far so good. I guess my questions iswhat is everyone else out there doing to satisfy SEC requirements for Electronic Documents Retention? Is there a better way? Or Better Software? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Backup onto LTO and compression question.
We found out about the drivers as well. The backup was taking up to two hours for a full dump of the stores. After updating the drives, we went down to 20 minutes or so. -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 5:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Backup onto LTO and compression question. It depends on other factors as well, the number and sizes of your tracking logs, the number of transaction logs on the server, are you indexing your message stores I'm currently backing up 164 Gbytes of data, that's a public folder store, three message stores in one storage group, tracking logs, transaction logs, indexes, etc. on one LTO-1 tape. Be advised, you may need to update the drivers on the PERC card and the SCSI card connecting the LTO tape unit in order to get decent performance out of it. The default Win2K drivers for the SCSI cards have a bug in them. John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: Pfefferkorn, Pete (PFEFFEPE) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 3:41 PM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Backup onto LTO and compression question. Subject: Backup onto LTO and compression question. This might be somewhat of a vague question. We current have a DellPowervault LTO 110T backup tape drive on our primary Exchange Server. It will back up 100 Gig non-compressed or 200 Gig compressed. Does anyone know the maximum size an Exchange DB can be if you use compression on the tape? I'm not sure how well the Exchange DB will compress. Pete Pfefferkorn Senior Systems Engineer/Mail Administrator University of Cincinnati 51 Goodman Street Cincinnati, OH 45221 Phone - (513) 556-9076 Fax - (513) 556-2042 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: The SEC is killing me.
Thank you for all your replies.I guess I was just curious what everyone else is doing...This has helped a lot. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me. You know that's exactly what I told them, but our security guy's patented response is This is the direction the company is going, I'm not privy to the information apparently. I'm just being told what to do, me and my counter part are not very happy about it. -Original Message- From: Chinnery, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 7:05 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me. Where are you getting the separation of duties part, Eric? I haven't seen anything like that. Although there's enough there (in HIPAA) that is to turn my hair greyer than it already is. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me. I don't have any SEC requirements, here its all HIPPA. And their big thing so far is separation of duties and checks and balances. Pretty soon if I need to create a mailbox I'm going to need permission from the security group. :( -Original Message- From: Clemens, Rick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 4:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: The SEC is killing me. Mixed Exchange 5.5 SP4 / Exchange 2000 SP3 100% Active Directory 100% Windows 2000 Advanced Server SP4 Our Legal and Security department wants us to provide the ability to access every e-mail the company sends or receives for a period of 90 days to satisfy certain SEC requirements. The original plan was to Journal everything into a mailbox using an Exchange 5.5 server. It worked in so far as all the mail went to the mailbox...but...After it got over 100 messages outlook didn't do a very good job searching it. So we moved the Journal to Exchange 2000 and are Indexing it. With 50 messages so far Outlook searches it pretty fast. So far so good. I guess my questions iswhat is everyone else out there doing to satisfy SEC requirements for Electronic Documents Retention? Is there a better way? Or Better Software? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: The SEC is killing me.
A product that is being usied on this side of the pond, is Mailstore from @rchive-it.com http://www.archive-it.com It takes the messages out of the Exchange system and stores them in SQL\Tape with everything being fully audited. BTW our data retention period for legal documents is 7 years !! Yours, Julian Stone -Original Message- From: Clemens, Rick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 16 January 2003 15:01 pm To: Exchange Discussions Thank you for all your replies.I guess I was just curious what everyone else is doing...This has helped a lot. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me. You know that's exactly what I told them, but our security guy's patented response is This is the direction the company is going, I'm not privy to the information apparently. I'm just being told what to do, me and my counter part are not very happy about it. -Original Message- From: Chinnery, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 7:05 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me. Where are you getting the separation of duties part, Eric? I haven't seen anything like that. Although there's enough there (in HIPAA) that is to turn my hair greyer than it already is. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me. I don't have any SEC requirements, here its all HIPPA. And their big thing so far is separation of duties and checks and balances. Pretty soon if I need to create a mailbox I'm going to need permission from the security group. :( -Original Message- From: Clemens, Rick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 4:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: The SEC is killing me. Mixed Exchange 5.5 SP4 / Exchange 2000 SP3 100% Active Directory 100% Windows 2000 Advanced Server SP4 Our Legal and Security department wants us to provide the ability to access every e-mail the company sends or receives for a period of 90 days to satisfy certain SEC requirements. The original plan was to Journal everything into a mailbox using an Exchange 5.5 server. It worked in so far as all the mail went to the mailbox...but...After it got over 100 messages outlook didn't do a very good job searching it. So we moved the Journal to Exchange 2000 and are Indexing it. With 50 messages so far Outlook searches it pretty fast. So far so good. I guess my questions iswhat is everyone else out there doing to satisfy SEC requirements for Electronic Documents Retention? Is there a better way? Or Better Software? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exchange 2000
Try http://cluster/exchange Those little lines are picky about which way they lean.. And Chris, get more coffee.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 7:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Hello Chris, is there something missing oin the cluster maybe a virtual iis server res or exchnage http server ressource? 1. Type in http:\\cluster\exchange this just brings me to a page not found error... 2. TechNet /Kb no suggestions on how to set up exchange virtual http server no error in event logs 3. Check FAQ for information on asking technical questions. neither an answer On 1/16/03 7:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Group, two errors/questions about a exchange 2000 cluster: 1) Owa is only possible to connect to one of the two nodes using the netbios name. http:\\nodeA\exchange or http:\\nodeB\exchange How to connect owa using the netbios name of the shared cluster ressource? http:\\cluster\exchange?? 2) Logoff of the mailbox terminates with an error: Http: 404 page not found for http:\\nodeA\exchange\logoff.asp Any advise for this questions? Thom _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exchange 5.5 sp3, OWA IIS5 and windows 2000
http://support.microsoft.com On 1/16/03 8:55, Bob Petra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To ad this extra IE message to my OWA problem Technical Information (for support personnel) Error Type: Microsoft VBScript runtime (0x800A01A8) Object required: 'Application(...)' /exchange/DUT/logon.asp, line 12 Browser Type: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0) Page: GET /exchange/DUT/logon.asp Time: Thursday, January 16, 2003, 3:58:36 PM More information: Microsoft Support _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exchange 2000
1. And the http error code is? And technet says what about it? And you tried those things with what results? 2. You're saying there is no KB article which addresses 404 errors when trying to logoff? Now, I haven't looked for a bit, so it's possible that the error message has been removed, but there's no indication that you've done the requisite research, so pardon me for not bothering to jump at the opportunity for you. 3. It appears that you lack the inclination or ability to phrase a proper technical question. Neither a useful answer shall likely receive til you rectify this situation. 4. On 1/16/03 8:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Chris, is there something missing oin the cluster maybe a virtual iis server res or exchnage http server ressource? 1. Type in http:\\cluster\exchange this just brings me to a page not found error... 2. TechNet /Kb no suggestions on how to set up exchange virtual http server no error in event logs 3. Check FAQ for information on asking technical questions. neither an answer On 1/16/03 7:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Group, two errors/questions about a exchange 2000 cluster: 1) Owa is only possible to connect to one of the two nodes using the netbios name. http:\\nodeA\exchange or http:\\nodeB\exchange How to connect owa using the netbios name of the shared cluster ressource? http:\\cluster\exchange?? 2) Logoff of the mailbox terminates with an error: Http: 404 page not found for http:\\nodeA\exchange\logoff.asp Any advise for this questions? Thom _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: The SEC is killing me.
MimeSweeper. TumbleWeed. -Original Message- From: Clemens, Rick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 6:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: The SEC is killing me. Mixed Exchange 5.5 SP4 / Exchange 2000 SP3 100% Active Directory 100% Windows 2000 Advanced Server SP4 Our Legal and Security department wants us to provide the ability to access every e-mail the company sends or receives for a period of 90 days to satisfy certain SEC requirements. The original plan was to Journal everything into a mailbox using an Exchange 5.5 server. It worked in so far as all the mail went to the mailbox...but...After it got over 100 messages outlook didn't do a very good job searching it. So we moved the Journal to Exchange 2000 and are Indexing it. With 50 messages so far Outlook searches it pretty fast. So far so good. I guess my questions iswhat is everyone else out there doing to satisfy SEC requirements for Electronic Documents Retention? Is there a better way? Or Better Software? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OWA and Outlook calendar not showing the same things
One of our sales guy who's on the road and uses OWA, is back in the office and his Outlook is nor showing the same appointments as when he logs into OWA. Has anyone seen this before. Mario Fernandez Network Administrator DataSynapse 632 Broadway 5th Floor New York, NY 10012 tel. (212) 842-8849 fax. (212) 842-8843 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] View the DataSynapse email disclaimer here: e-mail disclaimer http://www.datasynapse.com/legal/emailprivacy.jsp _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
User Sessions on Exchange 5.5
Hello, Is there a way to terminate a user session on Exchange 5.5 besides stopping Store (which is like using a sledge hammer to crack a nut). In other words, is there a way to logout a user from an Exchange server - disconnect them from their mailbox. All our Exchange servers run Exchange 5.5 and our clients are using Outlook 2000. Regards, Chris Tanner AECL Chalk River, Ont. Canada _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: User Sessions on Exchange 5.5
To what end? On 1/16/03 10:18, Chris tanner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, Is there a way to terminate a user session on Exchange 5.5 besides stopping Store (which is like using a sledge hammer to crack a nut). In other words, is there a way to logout a user from an Exchange server - disconnect them from their mailbox. All our Exchange servers run Exchange 5.5 and our clients are using Outlook 2000. Regards, Chris Tanner AECL Chalk River, Ont. Canada _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
question
Hi, if I have the message ID, how can I retrieve a message from the server? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exchange 2000
#2) Well obviously, a 404 error is Page not found at (this location) What's so hard to figure out about that? Go to the location that it's trying to access and see if there is a file called logoff.asp. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 5:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange 2000 Hello Group, two errors/questions about a exchange 2000 cluster: 1) Owa is only possible to connect to one of the two nodes using the netbios name. http:\\nodeA\exchange or http:\\nodeB\exchange How to connect owa using the netbios name of the shared cluster ressource? http:\\cluster\exchange?? 2) Logoff of the mailbox terminates with an error: Http: 404 page not found for http:\\nodeA\exchange\logoff.asp Any advise for this questions? Thom _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public Folder in Exchange 2000 /w Outlook 2002
Does anybody know how I can deny complete access to public folders w/ out having to go to each root folder and deny access to them? Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Public Folder in Exchange 2000 /w Outlook 2002
Don't believe you can, however this is what groups are for. On 1/16/03 11:50, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anybody know how I can deny complete access to public folders w/ out having to go to each root folder and deny access to them? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OWA and Outlook calendar not showing the same things
Is his Outlook pointing to the same location as where he was going via OWA? Drew Nicholson Technical Writer Network Engineer LAN Manager RapidApp 312-372-7188 (work) 312-543-0008 (cell) Born To Edit -Original Message- From: Mario Fernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: OWA and Outlook calendar not showing the same things One of our sales guy who's on the road and uses OWA, is back in the office and his Outlook is nor showing the same appointments as when he logs into OWA. Has anyone seen this before. Mario Fernandez Network Administrator DataSynapse 632 Broadway 5th Floor New York, NY 10012 tel. (212) 842-8849 fax. (212) 842-8843 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] View the DataSynapse email disclaimer here: e-mail disclaimer http://www.datasynapse.com/legal/emailprivacy.jsp _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OWA and Outlook calendar not showing the same things
User opted to use Schedule+ in his OWA options by chance? On 1/16/03 9:41, Mario Fernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of our sales guy who's on the road and uses OWA, is back in the office and his Outlook is nor showing the same appointments as when he logs into OWA. Has anyone seen this before. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Secondary smtp question
I have 20K mailboxes that I've added a secondary smtp address to. (obj-class, mode, alias, secondary-proxy-address) What I'd like to do is flip flop all email address so that the secondary smtp address becomes the primary. I can't figure it out. Anyone have the magic? thanks, Paul _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Secondary smtp question
obj-class, mode, alias, email addresses SMTP: - smtp: smtp: - SMTP On 1/16/03 12:04, Wehner, Paul (WEHNERPL) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have 20K mailboxes that I've added a secondary smtp address to. (obj-class, mode, alias, secondary-proxy-address) What I'd like to do is flip flop all email address so that the secondary smtp address becomes the primary. I can't figure it out. Anyone have the magic? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
the spam product question
I know I know I know, this questions has been asked a million times. My question has a small but important twist. We don't content filter our email here. Now they want to, even though we are less then 6 months away from a Exchange 2000 and/or Exchange .Net migration, but they want to do it anyway. I'm looking for the best spam filter that will run on 5.5 but then will also run on 2000. I dug through the archives a bit but didn't see this addressed. On a side note... They should really add the what anti-spam product should I use? question to the faq. Chow bellas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: the spam product question
We bought IMSS from Trend a few months agoI am very happy with it with the only exception being some of the log manipulation. Some of the searches and query's are not very detailed. Great product, we quarantine and block about a thousand a day.it will cost you too. Dave Stevens -IT Network Support- email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 1:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: the spam product question I know I know I know, this questions has been asked a million times. My question has a small but important twist. We don't content filter our email here. Now they want to, even though we are less then 6 months away from a Exchange 2000 and/or Exchange .Net migration, but they want to do it anyway. I'm looking for the best spam filter that will run on 5.5 but then will also run on 2000. I dug through the archives a bit but didn't see this addressed. On a side note... They should really add the what anti-spam product should I use? question to the faq. Chow bellas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Secondary smtp question
You have to set E-mail Addresses to set the default reply-to address, and then add the old primary into secondary-proxy-addresses, but you'd probably want to set the import to overwrite. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Wehner, Paul (WEHNERPL) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 1:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Secondary smtp question I have 20K mailboxes that I've added a secondary smtp address to. (obj-class, mode, alias, secondary-proxy-address) What I'd like to do is flip flop all email address so that the secondary smtp address becomes the primary. I can't figure it out. Anyone have the magic? thanks, Paul _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Secondary smtp question
That won't work in 5.5. Reply-to is specified by the SMTP address listed in 'Email Addresses' -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 1:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Secondary smtp question obj-class, mode, alias, email addresses SMTP: - smtp: smtp: - SMTP On 1/16/03 12:04, Wehner, Paul (WEHNERPL) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have 20K mailboxes that I've added a secondary smtp address to. (obj-class, mode, alias, secondary-proxy-address) What I'd like to do is flip flop all email address so that the secondary smtp address becomes the primary. I can't figure it out. Anyone have the magic? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: the spam product question
And this works on both 5.5 and 2000? -Original Message- From: Stevens, Dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question We bought IMSS from Trend a few months agoI am very happy with it with the only exception being some of the log manipulation. Some of the searches and query's are not very detailed. Great product, we quarantine and block about a thousand a day.it will cost you too. Dave Stevens -IT Network Support- email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 1:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: the spam product question I know I know I know, this questions has been asked a million times. My question has a small but important twist. We don't content filter our email here. Now they want to, even though we are less then 6 months away from a Exchange 2000 and/or Exchange .Net migration, but they want to do it anyway. I'm looking for the best spam filter that will run on 5.5 but then will also run on 2000. I dug through the archives a bit but didn't see this addressed. On a side note... They should really add the what anti-spam product should I use? question to the faq. Chow bellas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: the spam product question
What you want to do is get something that runs as a gateway rather than on the mail server. That will negate any issues of compatibility and keep the stuff from ever getting near the Exchange box. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: the spam product question I know I know I know, this questions has been asked a million times. My question has a small but important twist. We don't content filter our email here. Now they want to, even though we are less then 6 months away from a Exchange 2000 and/or Exchange .Net migration, but they want to do it anyway. I'm looking for the best spam filter that will run on 5.5 but then will also run on 2000. I dug through the archives a bit but didn't see this addressed. On a side note... They should really add the what anti-spam product should I use? question to the faq. Chow bellas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: the spam product question
Got it. And actually I probably should have mentioned that. And I have another question. Our scenario is 1 5.5 mailbox server, 1 5.5 SMTP server, and a recently aquired ANTISPAM server. This will be the gateway. So am I bound by exchange 5.5 still since I'm not actually going to install it on the exchange server or the smtp server? I would think not, but I'm not sure. And if I don't need a product specific then why do they have for example Symantec Filtering for Exchange, and things like that? e- -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question What you want to do is get something that runs as a gateway rather than on the mail server. That will negate any issues of compatibility and keep the stuff from ever getting near the Exchange box. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: the spam product question I know I know I know, this questions has been asked a million times. My question has a small but important twist. We don't content filter our email here. Now they want to, even though we are less then 6 months away from a Exchange 2000 and/or Exchange .Net migration, but they want to do it anyway. I'm looking for the best spam filter that will run on 5.5 but then will also run on 2000. I dug through the archives a bit but didn't see this addressed. On a side note... They should really add the what anti-spam product should I use? question to the faq. Chow bellas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: the spam product question
Because some people want that I guess... -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question Our scenario is 1 5.5 mailbox server, 1 5.5 SMTP server, and a recently aquired ANTISPAM server. This will be the gateway. So am I bound by exchange 5.5 still since I'm not actually going to install it on the exchange server or the smtp server? I would think not, but I'm not sure. And if I don't need a product specific then why do they have for example Symantec Filtering for Exchange, and things like that? e- -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question What you want to do is get something that runs as a gateway rather than on the mail server. That will negate any issues of compatibility and keep the stuff from ever getting near the Exchange box. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: the spam product question I know I know I know, this questions has been asked a million times. My question has a small but important twist. We don't content filter our email here. Now they want to, even though we are less then 6 months away from a Exchange 2000 and/or Exchange .Net migration, but they want to do it anyway. I'm looking for the best spam filter that will run on 5.5 but then will also run on 2000. I dug through the archives a bit but didn't see this addressed. On a side note... They should really add the what anti-spam product should I use? question to the faq. Chow bellas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Virus activity
And speaking of viruses and holidays, has anyone else noticed how Klez changes for some holidays? How else can you explain messages like Have a humour Epiphany, which only turn up in early January? -Peter -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:31 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Virus activity Actaully, apparently December 25th and January 1 were great times to release viruses. At least one of the largest AV vendors sent an email to all their customers telling them flat out that their virus labs would be outright closed on those days. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Busby, Jacob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 5:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Virus activity Is anyone else out there noticing a higher level of virus activity in the last week or so? Our gateway scanner has been catching an increasing number of viruses over the last week. I am also seeing a few that we haven't seen in quite a while. I am not concerned, just curious if others have noticed this also. -Ryan Start of year would make a good time release a new virus. People get back from the Christmas holidays and it can take a couple of days to get back in the swing in things. Also be on the look out for virii triggered on specific dates (eg. a Valentines Day virus) It's sad fact of life that some people have nothing better to do than write malicious code. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ This message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please delete it and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send this message to anyone else. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: the spam product question
Some low volume people will install the product on their exchange box, which saves lots of money if they don't have to have a second box to act as their gateway. We are looking at a product by GFI Called Mail Essentials.. I have run a demo of the product and it seems pretty robust, and had some nice reporting and filtering options.. Any other comments out there about this product or any other gateways??? Bryce Weathersby Networking Specialist I Lamar Institute Of Technology Beaumont, TX Phone: 409-839-2040 Fax: 409-839-2931 http://www.lit.edu -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question Got it. And actually I probably should have mentioned that. And I have another question. Our scenario is 1 5.5 mailbox server, 1 5.5 SMTP server, and a recently aquired ANTISPAM server. This will be the gateway. So am I bound by exchange 5.5 still since I'm not actually going to install it on the exchange server or the smtp server? I would think not, but I'm not sure. And if I don't need a product specific then why do they have for example Symantec Filtering for Exchange, and things like that? e- -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question What you want to do is get something that runs as a gateway rather than on the mail server. That will negate any issues of compatibility and keep the stuff from ever getting near the Exchange box. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: the spam product question I know I know I know, this questions has been asked a million times. My question has a small but important twist. We don't content filter our email here. Now they want to, even though we are less then 6 months away from a Exchange 2000 and/or Exchange .Net migration, but they want to do it anyway. I'm looking for the best spam filter that will run on 5.5 but then will also run on 2000. I dug through the archives a bit but didn't see this addressed. On a side note... They should really add the what anti-spam product should I use? question to the faq. Chow bellas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: the spam product question and Other stuff....
Now as a side note... After I praise the GFI and start looking into it for deployment.. They have broken their product into a gateway model and a module for your Exchange Box... 2 separate packages, which split what I wanted... Now features are in both.. So now I gotta buy 2 software packages.. Back to the demo lab... Anybody got a suggestion. We are looking for a gateway product to block viruses, spam, etc, AND have the ability to log each message into and/or out of the mail system into a SQL database for required archival purposes Bryce Weathersby Networking Specialist I Lamar Institute Of Technology Beaumont, TX Phone: 409-839-2040 Fax: 409-839-2931 http://www.lit.edu -Original Message- From: Weathersby, Bryce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 1:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question Some low volume people will install the product on their exchange box, which saves lots of money if they don't have to have a second box to act as their gateway. We are looking at a product by GFI Called Mail Essentials.. I have run a demo of the product and it seems pretty robust, and had some nice reporting and filtering options.. Any other comments out there about this product or any other gateways??? Bryce Weathersby Networking Specialist I Lamar Institute Of Technology Beaumont, TX Phone: 409-839-2040 Fax: 409-839-2931 http://www.lit.edu -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question Got it. And actually I probably should have mentioned that. And I have another question. Our scenario is 1 5.5 mailbox server, 1 5.5 SMTP server, and a recently aquired ANTISPAM server. This will be the gateway. So am I bound by exchange 5.5 still since I'm not actually going to install it on the exchange server or the smtp server? I would think not, but I'm not sure. And if I don't need a product specific then why do they have for example Symantec Filtering for Exchange, and things like that? e- -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question What you want to do is get something that runs as a gateway rather than on the mail server. That will negate any issues of compatibility and keep the stuff from ever getting near the Exchange box. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: the spam product question I know I know I know, this questions has been asked a million times. My question has a small but important twist. We don't content filter our email here. Now they want to, even though we are less then 6 months away from a Exchange 2000 and/or Exchange .Net migration, but they want to do it anyway. I'm looking for the best spam filter that will run on 5.5 but then will also run on 2000. I dug through the archives a bit but didn't see this addressed. On a side note... They should really add the what anti-spam product should I use? question to the faq. Chow bellas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: the spam product question and Other stuff....
Mail Marshal? -Original Message- From: Weathersby, Bryce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question and Other stuff Now as a side note... After I praise the GFI and start looking into it for deployment.. They have broken their product into a gateway model and a module for your Exchange Box... 2 separate packages, which split what I wanted... Now features are in both.. So now I gotta buy 2 software packages.. Back to the demo lab... Anybody got a suggestion. We are looking for a gateway product to block viruses, spam, etc, AND have the ability to log each message into and/or out of the mail system into a SQL database for required archival purposes Bryce Weathersby Networking Specialist I Lamar Institute Of Technology Beaumont, TX Phone: 409-839-2040 Fax: 409-839-2931 http://www.lit.edu -Original Message- From: Weathersby, Bryce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 1:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question Some low volume people will install the product on their exchange box, which saves lots of money if they don't have to have a second box to act as their gateway. We are looking at a product by GFI Called Mail Essentials.. I have run a demo of the product and it seems pretty robust, and had some nice reporting and filtering options.. Any other comments out there about this product or any other gateways??? Bryce Weathersby Networking Specialist I Lamar Institute Of Technology Beaumont, TX Phone: 409-839-2040 Fax: 409-839-2931 http://www.lit.edu -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question Got it. And actually I probably should have mentioned that. And I have another question. Our scenario is 1 5.5 mailbox server, 1 5.5 SMTP server, and a recently aquired ANTISPAM server. This will be the gateway. So am I bound by exchange 5.5 still since I'm not actually going to install it on the exchange server or the smtp server? I would think not, but I'm not sure. And if I don't need a product specific then why do they have for example Symantec Filtering for Exchange, and things like that? e- -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question What you want to do is get something that runs as a gateway rather than on the mail server. That will negate any issues of compatibility and keep the stuff from ever getting near the Exchange box. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: the spam product question I know I know I know, this questions has been asked a million times. My question has a small but important twist. We don't content filter our email here. Now they want to, even though we are less then 6 months away from a Exchange 2000 and/or Exchange .Net migration, but they want to do it anyway. I'm looking for the best spam filter that will run on 5.5 but then will also run on 2000. I dug through the archives a bit but didn't see this addressed. On a side note... They should really add the what anti-spam product should I use? question to the faq. Chow bellas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: the spam product question
And that's bad, correct. My somewhat limited knowledge would think that's bad. So is it safe to assume that as I look at product, because it's a gateway product, that it doesn't need to be software specific cause I'll never be actually installing exchange 5.5 on my antispam server? -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question Because some people want that I guess... -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question Our scenario is 1 5.5 mailbox server, 1 5.5 SMTP server, and a recently aquired ANTISPAM server. This will be the gateway. So am I bound by exchange 5.5 still since I'm not actually going to install it on the exchange server or the smtp server? I would think not, but I'm not sure. And if I don't need a product specific then why do they have for example Symantec Filtering for Exchange, and things like that? e- -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question What you want to do is get something that runs as a gateway rather than on the mail server. That will negate any issues of compatibility and keep the stuff from ever getting near the Exchange box. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: the spam product question I know I know I know, this questions has been asked a million times. My question has a small but important twist. We don't content filter our email here. Now they want to, even though we are less then 6 months away from a Exchange 2000 and/or Exchange .Net migration, but they want to do it anyway. I'm looking for the best spam filter that will run on 5.5 but then will also run on 2000. I dug through the archives a bit but didn't see this addressed. On a side note... They should really add the what anti-spam product should I use? question to the faq. Chow bellas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: the spam product question and Other stuff....
We are currently running Surf Control's Email Filter for SMTP. It has a robust spam filter, does virus scanning, has content filtering, and does have the option to log messages to a SQL Database. - Matt Matthew Bailey LAN Engineer CSK Auto, Inc. (602) 631-7486 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Weathersby, Bryce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question and Other stuff Now as a side note... After I praise the GFI and start looking into it for deployment.. They have broken their product into a gateway model and a module for your Exchange Box... 2 separate packages, which split what I wanted... Now features are in both.. So now I gotta buy 2 software packages.. Back to the demo lab... Anybody got a suggestion. We are looking for a gateway product to block viruses, spam, etc, AND have the ability to log each message into and/or out of the mail system into a SQL database for required archival purposes Bryce Weathersby Networking Specialist I Lamar Institute Of Technology Beaumont, TX Phone: 409-839-2040 Fax: 409-839-2931 http://www.lit.edu -Original Message- From: Weathersby, Bryce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 1:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question Some low volume people will install the product on their exchange box, which saves lots of money if they don't have to have a second box to act as their gateway. We are looking at a product by GFI Called Mail Essentials.. I have run a demo of the product and it seems pretty robust, and had some nice reporting and filtering options.. Any other comments out there about this product or any other gateways??? Bryce Weathersby Networking Specialist I Lamar Institute Of Technology Beaumont, TX Phone: 409-839-2040 Fax: 409-839-2931 http://www.lit.edu -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question Got it. And actually I probably should have mentioned that. And I have another question. Our scenario is 1 5.5 mailbox server, 1 5.5 SMTP server, and a recently aquired ANTISPAM server. This will be the gateway. So am I bound by exchange 5.5 still since I'm not actually going to install it on the exchange server or the smtp server? I would think not, but I'm not sure. And if I don't need a product specific then why do they have for example Symantec Filtering for Exchange, and things like that? e- -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question What you want to do is get something that runs as a gateway rather than on the mail server. That will negate any issues of compatibility and keep the stuff from ever getting near the Exchange box. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: the spam product question I know I know I know, this questions has been asked a million times. My question has a small but important twist. We don't content filter our email here. Now they want to, even though we are less then 6 months away from a Exchange 2000 and/or Exchange .Net migration, but they want to do it anyway. I'm looking for the best spam filter that will run on 5.5 but then will also run on 2000. I dug through the archives a bit but didn't see this addressed. On a side note... They should really add the what anti-spam product should I use? question to the faq. Chow bellas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: the spam product question
Is it bad. No, I don't think so. More a matter of preference. I prefer to get my mail and virus's cleaned up before it hits the server. I also like the fact that the gateway will hold my mail in the event my Exchange box goes down. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question And that's bad, correct. My somewhat limited knowledge would think that's bad. So is it safe to assume that as I look at product, because it's a gateway product, that it doesn't need to be software specific cause I'll never be actually installing exchange 5.5 on my antispam server? -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question Because some people want that I guess... -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question Our scenario is 1 5.5 mailbox server, 1 5.5 SMTP server, and a recently aquired ANTISPAM server. This will be the gateway. So am I bound by exchange 5.5 still since I'm not actually going to install it on the exchange server or the smtp server? I would think not, but I'm not sure. And if I don't need a product specific then why do they have for example Symantec Filtering for Exchange, and things like that? e- -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question What you want to do is get something that runs as a gateway rather than on the mail server. That will negate any issues of compatibility and keep the stuff from ever getting near the Exchange box. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: the spam product question I know I know I know, this questions has been asked a million times. My question has a small but important twist. We don't content filter our email here. Now they want to, even though we are less then 6 months away from a Exchange 2000 and/or Exchange .Net migration, but they want to do it anyway. I'm looking for the best spam filter that will run on 5.5 but then will also run on 2000. I dug through the archives a bit but didn't see this addressed. On a side note... They should really add the what anti-spam product should I use? question to the faq. Chow bellas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: the spam product question
Ok, super, I think I have been set straight on this subject. Thanks Martin. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question Is it bad. No, I don't think so. More a matter of preference. I prefer to get my mail and virus's cleaned up before it hits the server. I also like the fact that the gateway will hold my mail in the event my Exchange box goes down. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question And that's bad, correct. My somewhat limited knowledge would think that's bad. So is it safe to assume that as I look at product, because it's a gateway product, that it doesn't need to be software specific cause I'll never be actually installing exchange 5.5 on my antispam server? -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question Because some people want that I guess... -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question Our scenario is 1 5.5 mailbox server, 1 5.5 SMTP server, and a recently aquired ANTISPAM server. This will be the gateway. So am I bound by exchange 5.5 still since I'm not actually going to install it on the exchange server or the smtp server? I would think not, but I'm not sure. And if I don't need a product specific then why do they have for example Symantec Filtering for Exchange, and things like that? e- -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question What you want to do is get something that runs as a gateway rather than on the mail server. That will negate any issues of compatibility and keep the stuff from ever getting near the Exchange box. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: the spam product question I know I know I know, this questions has been asked a million times. My question has a small but important twist. We don't content filter our email here. Now they want to, even though we are less then 6 months away from a Exchange 2000 and/or Exchange .Net migration, but they want to do it anyway. I'm looking for the best spam filter that will run on 5.5 but then will also run on 2000. I dug through the archives a bit but didn't see this addressed. On a side note... They should really add the what anti-spam product should I use? question to the faq. Chow bellas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: the spam product question
I agree, but disagree... I come from the old school where it is better to dedicate a box to one function. Yea I know with today's CPU's processing isn't a problem.. But why burden one box if you can afford/justify a second.. And I 100% agree with cleaning up the message before it EVER gets to your touchy Exchange box... I have had em die before and that is just NO fun...LOL Bryce Weathersby Networking Specialist I Lamar Institute Of Technology Beaumont, TX Phone: 409-839-2040 Fax: 409-839-2931 http://www.lit.edu -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 1:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question Is it bad. No, I don't think so. More a matter of preference. I prefer to get my mail and virus's cleaned up before it hits the server. I also like the fact that the gateway will hold my mail in the event my Exchange box goes down. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question And that's bad, correct. My somewhat limited knowledge would think that's bad. So is it safe to assume that as I look at product, because it's a gateway product, that it doesn't need to be software specific cause I'll never be actually installing exchange 5.5 on my antispam server? -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question Because some people want that I guess... -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question Our scenario is 1 5.5 mailbox server, 1 5.5 SMTP server, and a recently aquired ANTISPAM server. This will be the gateway. So am I bound by exchange 5.5 still since I'm not actually going to install it on the exchange server or the smtp server? I would think not, but I'm not sure. And if I don't need a product specific then why do they have for example Symantec Filtering for Exchange, and things like that? e- -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question What you want to do is get something that runs as a gateway rather than on the mail server. That will negate any issues of compatibility and keep the stuff from ever getting near the Exchange box. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: the spam product question I know I know I know, this questions has been asked a million times. My question has a small but important twist. We don't content filter our email here. Now they want to, even though we are less then 6 months away from a Exchange 2000 and/or Exchange .Net migration, but they want to do it anyway. I'm looking for the best spam filter that will run on 5.5 but then will also run on 2000. I dug through the archives a bit but didn't see this addressed. On a side note... They should really add the what anti-spam product should I use? question to the faq. Chow bellas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives:
RE: The SEC is killing me.
Me too. It was an amazing tool. I did a lot of programming in both Smartware and Smartware II as well. I remember one time I had a requirement to make the database in 3.3 do something that in theory it could not. So I used the macro language to write the code from scratch and generate screens that looked like Smart itself including the menus and commands , thus giving the illusion that Smart had suddenly gotten some new functionality. It was really quick and easy to do, since any command could be linked back to itself, and module linking effectively made the nesting levels unlimited. It was an amazingly powerful environment. Office didn't really begin to come close to it until Office 95, but even the XP version still can't do some of the things that Smartware II could do, which is probably a good thing. A Smartware II program could rewrite the contents of the ROM BIOS, or write directly to things like the disk controller's controls, flip bits on the NIC and so on. In a Netware environment it could do all of this across multiple machines and even retrieve the values of any address using a pair of linked macros. You could write a help center program, complete with take over or merely screen replication tools. It was bad. -Original Message- From: Hurst, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me. Craig, You remembered Smartware and Smartware II (or was that Smartware plus a bit), like that product as it was one of the first. Earned me £££'s doing macros work. Loved it for that. Cheers Paul Standards are like toothbrushes, everyone wants one but not yours -Original Message- From: Dupler, Craig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 16 January 2003 01:34 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me. This will not help you with your SEC problem. It's just a musing and is merely to suggest that no audit technique is fool proof. I think that any system that you can design, a clever person can get around. Let me suggest a scenario from back in the days when I was working on virus delivery techniques and counter measures. The key to this particular almost impossible to detect nefarious message delivery technique would be to send a message to an external mailbox that had a client running against it with in-box rules enabled. The client could parse the message and execute a script or even an external program that would generate another message, which could be sent to any smtp address (or in the case of a virus, do nefarious things on its own local network). So let's say I send a one word message to my home mailbox that says hi. That could trigger a script that sends a message to tell someone to sell. Another script triggered by dinner tonight could trigger a script that generates the buy message. You get the idea. The offending message itself can be as simple or complex but apparently harmless cipher that you could imagine. It could even be embedded in a pattern that looks like I'm sending a daily (or better yet, apparently random and occasional) note commenting on tonight's menu, with an if message text contains filter at the other end. A hindered word note that contained the phrase rare steak could be the trigger. The to address is not that of the ultimate recipient, and the instruction in a form that you could detect is beyond the reach of your archives and searches. There reality is, that you simply cannot filter for this sort of thing in your archives. You can find someone that is being stupid or careless, but not someone that is cunning and deliberate. The extent to which variations on this technique can be used is frightening. Consider what a batch file on a DOS machine could do, in terms of generating an Assembly language program by having VB Script simply write stings from an Excel or Word document to a text file. The VB Script does not even have to travel with the Office document, but can simply be running on the machine on the receiving end. Such a trigger can be hidden behind layer upon layer of isolating techniques. The initial trigger instruction does not have to be sent via SMTP. A FAX to something like a SatisFAXtion modem or a call to an IVR system listening for a specific DMTF sequence that would not be recorded by your phone system can do it. A web site can do it. Web mail to your home smtp address can do it. A cellular call . . . You get the idea. Every link will leave some tracks, but those tracks can be incomplete and look very harmless. Back in the 80's before Microsoft Office became the dominant office suite, there was a product called Smartware by a small company in Lenexa, Kansas that was later purchased by Informix and destroyed. Smartware had the equivalent of VBA in all of its modules, and it had a communications module. The second version of the package even had PEEK and POKE instructions. Imagine what you could do with that
Re: the spam product question
The what anti-spam solution should I use FAQ answer I've submitted weekly for the last 3 years is A1. The one Chris Scharff recommends for you after a profitable (for him) consulting engagement, where he selects the best product to meet the needs you relate to him surrounding such a solution. I think it should be added soon. On 1/16/03 12:11, Hansen, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know I know I know, this questions has been asked a million times. My question has a small but important twist. We don't content filter our email here. Now they want to, even though we are less then 6 months away from a Exchange 2000 and/or Exchange .Net migration, but they want to do it anyway. I'm looking for the best spam filter that will run on 5.5 but then will also run on 2000. I dug through the archives a bit but didn't see this addressed. On a side note... They should really add the what anti-spam product should I use? question to the faq. Chow bellas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: the spam product question
Personally I just forward all my spam mail to Chris and he takes care of them for me, I think everyone should do that :) Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA Internet/WAN Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: the spam product question The what anti-spam solution should I use FAQ answer I've submitted weekly for the last 3 years is A1. The one Chris Scharff recommends for you after a profitable (for him) consulting engagement, where he selects the best product to meet the needs you relate to him surrounding such a solution. I think it should be added soon. On 1/16/03 12:11, Hansen, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know I know I know, this questions has been asked a million times. My question has a small but important twist. We don't content filter our email here. Now they want to, even though we are less then 6 months away from a Exchange 2000 and/or Exchange .Net migration, but they want to do it anyway. I'm looking for the best spam filter that will run on 5.5 but then will also run on 2000. I dug through the archives a bit but didn't see this addressed. On a side note... They should really add the what anti-spam product should I use? question to the faq. Chow bellas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: the spam product question
Erm... If you only filter hatemail / inappropriate language / spam / viruses on the gateway, your internal employees can then send hatemail / inappropriate language / spam / viruses. Hence the Exchange store product and the separate gateway product. Use the gateway to keep the junk from the Internet from hitting you, and use the Exchange store product to do it internally, if you have a mandate. Many companies do. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Thursday, January 16, 2003 1:19 PM Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List Conversation: the spam product question Subject: RE: the spam product question And that's bad, correct. My somewhat limited knowledge would think that's bad. So is it safe to assume that as I look at product, because it's a gateway product, that it doesn't need to be software specific cause I'll never be actually installing exchange 5.5 on my antispam server? -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question Because some people want that I guess... -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question Our scenario is 1 5.5 mailbox server, 1 5.5 SMTP server, and a recently aquired ANTISPAM server. This will be the gateway. So am I bound by exchange 5.5 still since I'm not actually going to install it on the exchange server or the smtp server? I would think not, but I'm not sure. And if I don't need a product specific then why do they have for example Symantec Filtering for Exchange, and things like that? e- -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the spam product question What you want to do is get something that runs as a gateway rather than on the mail server. That will negate any issues of compatibility and keep the stuff from ever getting near the Exchange box. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: the spam product question I know I know I know, this questions has been asked a million times. My question has a small but important twist. We don't content filter our email here. Now they want to, even though we are less then 6 months away from a Exchange 2000 and/or Exchange .Net migration, but they want to do it anyway. I'm looking for the best spam filter that will run on 5.5 but then will also run on 2000. I dug through the archives a bit but didn't see this addressed. On a side note... They should really add the what anti-spam product should I use? question to the faq. Chow bellas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: question
Is it internal? Or did it originate externally? Also what version of Exchange? Thank you, Alex Gonzalez Senior Systems Administrator Handleman Company [EMAIL PROTECTED] (248) 362-4400 Ext. 4914 -Original Message- From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Hi, if I have the message ID, how can I retrieve a message from the server? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OWA and Outlook calendar not showing the same things
Is he using personal folders for delivery in Outlook? Thank you, Alex Gonzalez Senior Systems Administrator Handleman Company [EMAIL PROTECTED] (248) 362-4400 Ext. 4914 -Original Message- From: Drew Nicholson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:56 PM To: Exchange Discussions Is his Outlook pointing to the same location as where he was going via OWA? Drew Nicholson Technical Writer Network Engineer LAN Manager RapidApp 312-372-7188 (work) 312-543-0008 (cell) Born To Edit -Original Message- From: Mario Fernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: OWA and Outlook calendar not showing the same things One of our sales guy who's on the road and uses OWA, is back in the office and his Outlook is nor showing the same appointments as when he logs into OWA. Has anyone seen this before. Mario Fernandez Network Administrator DataSynapse 632 Broadway 5th Floor New York, NY 10012 tel. (212) 842-8849 fax. (212) 842-8843 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] View the DataSynapse email disclaimer here: e-mail disclaimer http://www.datasynapse.com/legal/emailprivacy.jsp _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Public Folder in Exchange 2000 /w Outlook 2002
If EX2000 set permissions at server level on the folder and right click go to all tasks and propagate settings. Thank you, Alex Gonzalez Senior Systems Administrator Handleman Company [EMAIL PROTECTED] (248) 362-4400 Ext. 4914 -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:54 PM To: Exchange Discussions Don't believe you can, however this is what groups are for. On 1/16/03 11:50, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anybody know how I can deny complete access to public folders w/ out having to go to each root folder and deny access to them? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Public Folder in Exchange 2000 /w Outlook 2002
pfadmin ? -Original Message- From: Newsgroups [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Public Folder in Exchange 2000 /w Outlook 2002 Does anybody know how I can deny complete access to public folders w/ out having to go to each root folder and deny access to them? Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Permissions problem
Help!! Users seem to be able to open everyone else's mailboxes with full permissions. Users are able to set up additional profiles in Outlook and specify a different user and they are not prompted for a password. I had noticed it on my machine and I just chaulked it up to being logged in as administrator, but it seems that everyone can do it. I haven't found anything blantantly obvious so I figured I send it out to you folks and see what you came back with. Thanks Todd Boynton[EMAIL PROTECTED] == Communications Specialist == UNET Technology Services, Network Operations == Maine School and Library Network ==University of Maine System _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Permissions problem
Users can only do what they have permissions to do. Since a version of Exchange is not listed, I'll just toss out a WAG and suggest you look at the permissions the everyone group has in the Exchange Admin. On 1/16/03 15:12, Boynton, Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Help!! Users seem to be able to open everyone else's mailboxes with full permissions. Users are able to set up additional profiles in Outlook and specify a different user and they are not prompted for a password. I had noticed it on my machine and I just chaulked it up to being logged in as administrator, but it seems that everyone can do it. I haven't found anything blantantly obvious so I figured I send it out to you folks and see what you came back with. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rules Wizard Issue
I have a rule setup to move a message when it comes in if it matches certain criteria in the recipient address. The messages is copied to the folder in the rule, but it does not remove the original from the Inbox. I've done these rules a million times, so I cannot imagine what I've done wrong. Here is what I have on my PC: Outlook 2002 (10.2627.2625) Exchange 2000 The rules are client only and the Outlook client is up when it happens. Am I missing something? Thanks Damian _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules Wizard Issue
Update to this issue. I only have two rules for my rules wizard to follow. One is for this mailing list and the other is for another mailing list. Both are set the exact same way. I noticed that the first rule in the list copies the message to the folder but does not remove it from the Inbox. While the second rule moves the message and does not leave behind a copy. It does not matter which of the two rules is first, the patter of the first failing to work properly always occurs. Any ideas? Or is this a bug with Outlook 2002 and move message rules? Thanks. Damian --- I have a rule setup to move a message when it comes in if it matches certain criteria in the recipient address. The messages is copied to the folder in the rule, but it does not remove the original from the Inbox. I've done these rules a million times, so I cannot imagine what I've done wrong. Here is what I have on my PC: Outlook 2002 (10.2627.2625) Exchange 2000 The rules are client only and the Outlook client is up when it happens. Am I missing something? Thanks Damian _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Permissions problem
Sounds like someone gave a group to which all users belong to Exchange admin rights. Check those. Your running E2K I take it. - Original Message - From: Boynton, Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:12 PM Subject: Permissions problem Help!! Users seem to be able to open everyone else's mailboxes with full permissions. Users are able to set up additional profiles in Outlook and specify a different user and they are not prompted for a password. I had noticed it on my machine and I just chaulked it up to being logged in as administrator, but it seems that everyone can do it. I haven't found anything blantantly obvious so I figured I send it out to you folks and see what you came back with. Thanks Todd Boynton[EMAIL PROTECTED] == Communications Specialist == UNET Technology Services, Network Operations == Maine School and Library Network ==University of Maine System _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Rules Wizard Issue
You might try adding and stop processing more rules to the end of your rules. -Peter -Original Message- From: Scoles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Rules Wizard Issue I have a rule setup to move a message when it comes in if it matches certain criteria in the recipient address. The messages is copied to the folder in the rule, but it does not remove the original from the Inbox. I've done these rules a million times, so I cannot imagine what I've done wrong. Here is what I have on my PC: Outlook 2002 (10.2627.2625) Exchange 2000 The rules are client only and the Outlook client is up when it happens. Am I missing something? Thanks Damian _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ This message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please delete it and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send this message to anyone else. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Permissions problem
I always forget to mention that. Yes I'm running E2K Todd Boynton[EMAIL PROTECTED] == Communications Specialist == UNET Technology Services, Network Operations == Maine School and Library Network ==University of Maine System -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Permissions problem Sounds like someone gave a group to which all users belong to Exchange admin rights. Check those. Your running E2K I take it. - Original Message - From: Boynton, Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:12 PM Subject: Permissions problem Help!! Users seem to be able to open everyone else's mailboxes with full permissions. Users are able to set up additional profiles in Outlook and specify a different user and they are not prompted for a password. I had noticed it on my machine and I just chaulked it up to being logged in as administrator, but it seems that everyone can do it. I haven't found anything blantantly obvious so I figured I send it out to you folks and see what you came back with. Thanks Todd Boynton[EMAIL PROTECTED] == Communications Specialist == UNET Technology Services, Network Operations == Maine School and Library Network ==University of Maine System _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Prevent forward/copy/print
I would like to disable forward/copy/print of an attachment that I email to somebody. In doing so, the recipient of the Email will not be able to forward/copy/print the attachment. This feature is available in Lotus Notes. Does anyone know if MS Exchange - MS Outlook allow you to do that. Thanks, _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Permissions problem
Looking through ESM and the mailbox store Everyone has no rights but also no denies. Todd Boynton[EMAIL PROTECTED] == Communications Specialist == UNET Technology Services, Network Operations == Maine School and Library Network ==University of Maine System -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Permissions problem Users can only do what they have permissions to do. Since a version of Exchange is not listed, I'll just toss out a WAG and suggest you look at the permissions the everyone group has in the Exchange Admin. On 1/16/03 15:12, Boynton, Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Help!! Users seem to be able to open everyone else's mailboxes with full permissions. Users are able to set up additional profiles in Outlook and specify a different user and they are not prompted for a password. I had noticed it on my machine and I just chaulked it up to being logged in as administrator, but it seems that everyone can do it. I haven't found anything blantantly obvious so I figured I send it out to you folks and see what you came back with. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Permissions problem
That's not entirely acurate. Everyone has rights to Create named properties.. Blah blah, but that's it. Todd Boynton[EMAIL PROTECTED] == Communications Specialist == UNET Technology Services, Network Operations == Maine School and Library Network ==University of Maine System -Original Message- From: Boynton, Todd Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Permissions problem Looking through ESM and the mailbox store Everyone has no rights but also no denies. Todd Boynton[EMAIL PROTECTED] == Communications Specialist == UNET Technology Services, Network Operations == Maine School and Library Network ==University of Maine System -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Permissions problem Users can only do what they have permissions to do. Since a version of Exchange is not listed, I'll just toss out a WAG and suggest you look at the permissions the everyone group has in the Exchange Admin. On 1/16/03 15:12, Boynton, Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Help!! Users seem to be able to open everyone else's mailboxes with full permissions. Users are able to set up additional profiles in Outlook and specify a different user and they are not prompted for a password. I had noticed it on my machine and I just chaulked it up to being logged in as administrator, but it seems that everyone can do it. I haven't found anything blantantly obvious so I figured I send it out to you folks and see what you came back with. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Permissions problem
On an individual users mailbox rights, Everyone has permission to read. Todd Boynton[EMAIL PROTECTED] == Communications Specialist == UNET Technology Services, Network Operations == Maine School and Library Network ==University of Maine System -Original Message- From: Boynton, Todd Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:54 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Permissions problem That's not entirely acurate. Everyone has rights to Create named properties.. Blah blah, but that's it. Todd Boynton[EMAIL PROTECTED] == Communications Specialist == UNET Technology Services, Network Operations == Maine School and Library Network ==University of Maine System -Original Message- From: Boynton, Todd Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Permissions problem Looking through ESM and the mailbox store Everyone has no rights but also no denies. Todd Boynton[EMAIL PROTECTED] == Communications Specialist == UNET Technology Services, Network Operations == Maine School and Library Network ==University of Maine System -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Permissions problem Users can only do what they have permissions to do. Since a version of Exchange is not listed, I'll just toss out a WAG and suggest you look at the permissions the everyone group has in the Exchange Admin. On 1/16/03 15:12, Boynton, Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Help!! Users seem to be able to open everyone else's mailboxes with full permissions. Users are able to set up additional profiles in Outlook and specify a different user and they are not prompted for a password. I had noticed it on my machine and I just chaulked it up to being logged in as administrator, but it seems that everyone can do it. I haven't found anything blantantly obvious so I figured I send it out to you folks and see what you came back with. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Rules Wizard Issue
Tried this and it makes things worse, I can't get rules after it to work. Here is something else that is interesting. I tried to create a dummy rule in front of it to filter fake messages, but it does not aleviate the situation. Anyways, I have to assume this is a bug with Outlook 2002. I did not find anything on Microsofts web page yet. Thanks anyways. Damian -Original Message- From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 3:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Rules Wizard Issue You might try adding and stop processing more rules to the end of your rules. -Peter -Original Message- From: Scoles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Rules Wizard Issue I have a rule setup to move a message when it comes in if it matches certain criteria in the recipient address. The messages is copied to the folder in the rule, but it does not remove the original from the Inbox. I've done these rules a million times, so I cannot imagine what I've done wrong. Here is what I have on my PC: Outlook 2002 (10.2627.2625) Exchange 2000 The rules are client only and the Outlook client is up when it happens. Am I missing something? Thanks Damian _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ This message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please delete it and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send this message to anyone else. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules Wizard Issue
Choose move instead of copy in the rules creation process. On 1/16/03 12:52, Scoles, Damian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a rule setup to move a message when it comes in if it matches certain criteria in the recipient address. The messages is copied to the folder in the rule, but it does not remove the original from the Inbox. I've done these rules a million times, so I cannot imagine what I've done wrong. Here is what I have on my PC: Outlook 2002 (10.2627.2625) Exchange 2000 The rules are client only and the Outlook client is up when it happens. Am I missing something? Thanks Damian _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Permissions problem
Ah, then someone has really had to go in and dig to make the change... I don't suppose the who is documented in a change log anywhere... On 1/16/03 15:33, Boynton, Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always forget to mention that. Yes I'm running E2K Todd Boynton[EMAIL PROTECTED] == Communications Specialist == UNET Technology Services, Network Operations == Maine School and Library Network ==University of Maine System -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Permissions problem Sounds like someone gave a group to which all users belong to Exchange admin rights. Check those. Your running E2K I take it. - Original Message - From: Boynton, Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:12 PM Subject: Permissions problem Help!! Users seem to be able to open everyone else's mailboxes with full permissions. Users are able to set up additional profiles in Outlook and specify a different user and they are not prompted for a password. I had noticed it on my machine and I just chaulked it up to being logged in as administrator, but it seems that everyone can do it. I haven't found anything blantantly obvious so I figured I send it out to you folks and see what you came back with. Thanks Todd Boynton[EMAIL PROTECTED] == Communications Specialist == UNET Technology Services, Network Operations == Maine School and Library Network ==University of Maine System _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Prevent forward/copy/print
lol... This feature isn't available in Notes or Exchange. On 1/16/03 15:36, Jean-Claude [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to disable forward/copy/print of an attachment that I email to somebody. In doing so, the recipient of the Email will not be able to forward/copy/print the attachment. This feature is available in Lotus Notes. Does anyone know if MS Exchange - MS Outlook allow you to do that. Thanks, _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Permissions problem
Look at the IS object.. Receive as is the right you are looking for. On 1/16/03 15:56, Boynton, Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On an individual users mailbox rights, Everyone has permission to read. Todd Boynton[EMAIL PROTECTED] == Communications Specialist == UNET Technology Services, Network Operations == Maine School and Library Network ==University of Maine System -Original Message- From: Boynton, Todd Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:54 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Permissions problem That's not entirely acurate. Everyone has rights to Create named properties.. Blah blah, but that's it. Todd Boynton[EMAIL PROTECTED] == Communications Specialist == UNET Technology Services, Network Operations == Maine School and Library Network ==University of Maine System -Original Message- From: Boynton, Todd Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Permissions problem Looking through ESM and the mailbox store Everyone has no rights but also no denies. Todd Boynton[EMAIL PROTECTED] == Communications Specialist == UNET Technology Services, Network Operations == Maine School and Library Network ==University of Maine System -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Permissions problem Users can only do what they have permissions to do. Since a version of Exchange is not listed, I'll just toss out a WAG and suggest you look at the permissions the everyone group has in the Exchange Admin. On 1/16/03 15:12, Boynton, Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Help!! Users seem to be able to open everyone else's mailboxes with full permissions. Users are able to set up additional profiles in Outlook and specify a different user and they are not prompted for a password. I had noticed it on my machine and I just chaulked it up to being logged in as administrator, but it seems that everyone can do it. I haven't found anything blantantly obvious so I figured I send it out to you folks and see what you came back with. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules Wizard Issue
More likely user error... On 1/16/03 15:54, Scoles, Damian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tried this and it makes things worse, I can't get rules after it to work. Here is something else that is interesting. I tried to create a dummy rule in front of it to filter fake messages, but it does not aleviate the situation. Anyways, I have to assume this is a bug with Outlook 2002. I did not find anything on Microsofts web page yet. Thanks anyways. Damian -Original Message- From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 3:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Rules Wizard Issue You might try adding and stop processing more rules to the end of your rules. -Peter -Original Message- From: Scoles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Rules Wizard Issue I have a rule setup to move a message when it comes in if it matches certain criteria in the recipient address. The messages is copied to the folder in the rule, but it does not remove the original from the Inbox. I've done these rules a million times, so I cannot imagine what I've done wrong. Here is what I have on my PC: Outlook 2002 (10.2627.2625) Exchange 2000 The rules are client only and the Outlook client is up when it happens. Am I missing something? Thanks Damian _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ This message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please delete it and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send this message to anyone else. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Rules Wizard Issue
Chris, Here is a text copy of the rules I have: Apply this rule after message arrives With [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the recipient's address Move it to the Exchange folder And Apply this rule after message arrives With [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the recipient's address Move it to the Ntsysadmin folder However, only one will work at a time. Hope this clarifies things. Damian -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Rules Wizard Issue Choose move instead of copy in the rules creation process. On 1/16/03 12:52, Scoles, Damian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a rule setup to move a message when it comes in if it matches certain criteria in the recipient address. The messages is copied to the folder in the rule, but it does not remove the original from the Inbox. I've done these rules a million times, so I cannot imagine what I've done wrong. Here is what I have on my PC: Outlook 2002 (10.2627.2625) Exchange 2000 The rules are client only and the Outlook client is up when it happens. Am I missing something? Thanks Damian _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules Wizard Issue
Both ought to be subscribed to PFs as described in the FAQ, instead of going directly to you... However, create a contact for each object and create your rule based on messages sent 'to a person or distribution list'[ (and select the proper contact for each). On 1/16/03 16:03, Scoles, Damian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris, Here is a text copy of the rules I have: Apply this rule after message arrives With [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the recipient's address Move it to the Exchange folder And Apply this rule after message arrives With [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the recipient's address Move it to the Ntsysadmin folder However, only one will work at a time. Hope this clarifies things. Damian -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Rules Wizard Issue Choose move instead of copy in the rules creation process. On 1/16/03 12:52, Scoles, Damian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a rule setup to move a message when it comes in if it matches certain criteria in the recipient address. The messages is copied to the folder in the rule, but it does not remove the original from the Inbox. I've done these rules a million times, so I cannot imagine what I've done wrong. Here is what I have on my PC: Outlook 2002 (10.2627.2625) Exchange 2000 The rules are client only and the Outlook client is up when it happens. Am I missing something? Thanks Damian _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Prevent forward/copy/print
You must have meant PDF files. You can set the restriction of not being able to print/copy/modify pdf files. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jean-Claude Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Prevent forward/copy/print I would like to disable forward/copy/print of an attachment that I email to somebody. In doing so, the recipient of the Email will not be able to forward/copy/print the attachment. This feature is available in Lotus Notes. Does anyone know if MS Exchange - MS Outlook allow you to do that. Thanks, _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
