RE: Exchange server level encryption-OT
Chris, I take exception to your comments in your second paragraph that the reality is that companies don't really care about protecting patient data. I work in a hospital and have met many people from other hospitals through seminars, meetings, etc. To say that we don't care is patently false. Patient confidentiality is a priority, second only to patient care. Our hospital has zero tolerance for PHI disclosure. A nurse blabs to someone about a patient and boom! she's fired. I know, I've seen it happen. The trouble with HIPAA is that they seem to want hospitals and healthcare organizations to be almost as secure as the Pentagon. Our administration hired a big name outfit to give their recomendations. I had to read through 23 documents from them. And some of them, the suggestions, were insane. One suggested (although it said it was optional) searching all purses and bags that patients or visitors to the hospital. I guess they're afraid someone would sneak in a floppy to be used to copy patient data. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption-OT Not an expert on the science behind this essay http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224s=easterbrook022403, but the idea of needing to use nuclear power plants to product the levels of hydrogen needed for 'clean fuel cells' seems to make the water is the only byproduct argument a bit disingenuous. Course as I said, I'm not an expert on the subject so I'm certainly open to knowing where the levels of hydrogen needed for such a thing would come from. Perhaps instead of replacing HIPPA, those companies subject to its regulations need to rethink how and why patient data would need to leave their environment and design secure systems (which e-mail aint) to facilitate that transmittal. Course the reality is companies aren't really interested in protecting patient data, just in being compliant with the various regulatory agencies which govern them. So, following the cheapest route to compliance they encounter the reality that cheap aint easy. On 2/25/03 16:06, Christopher Hummert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok I knew I shouldn't have used that example, cause I knew somewhere we were going to get into a debate about it. In addition I should have said Hydrogen Fuel Cells which is what I was thinking of when I made the statement. As far as the pollution: Fuel cells efficiently convert hydrogen fuel and oxygen from the air into electricity. Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (HFCEVs) emit only water vapor from their exhaust pipes. Demonstrations of HFCEVs have been successful and this technology is expected to displace internal combustion engines in the 21st Century. Which I got from pretty much the first thing I could google up here: http://www.hydrogencomponents.com/altfuel.html _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Requesting dadt from Exchange Server
We are using Exchange server 5.5./sp3 and the clients use Outlook 2000 and XP. A lot of user has been getting Requesting Data From Exchange Server , when opening the email client, or addresse book or sending mail. Has anyone ever had this problem? I would appreciate your assistance. 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: Exchange server level encryption
Security rule was published in the Federal Register on February 20. Compliance date is April 21, 2005. Like you, we're still looking at out options. I did read in Computerworld that Pkware's newest version of pkzip, I believe v6.0, uses better encryption and they feel it will meet HIPAA guidelines. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Well last info I got from compliance yesterday was we got an extension til Oct 13, 2003. I hope you have better info than I do. :-) -Original Message- From: Chinnery, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Actually, Mike, the finalized HIPAA security rule says that email encryption is one of the addressables. They removed it from the required section. Be that as it may, we too, are looking into email encryption. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Well, basically, any information transmitted outside of our company through a public channel (internet included) has to be encrypted. Neither the specific type of, nor level of is explicitly stated. What I basically want to do is this. If anyone sends email outside of our company, I want it to be grabbed and encrypted. Decryption I would guess would have to happen at the client on the other side. -Original Message- From: Leeann McCallum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption You could have a look at MailMarshal Secure which is an email encryption and decryption gateway. It's an add-on to MailMarshal which provides content filtering, virus checking etc. Are you looking specifically at e-mail encryption or would something like transport layer encryption be sufficient? What does your security policy say? Leeann -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 26 February 2003 9:25 a.m. To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange server level encryption Ok, my eyes are going crossed. I have been trying to figure out a decent way to encrypt all outbound email from our company. This is for compliance with HIPAA. Does anyone happen to have any ideas? I have googled and haven't found a product that looks right. I have searched for exchange 2000 encryption, email encryption, etc. Help? TIA 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] NOTICE - This e-mail is only intended to be read by the named recipient. It may contain information which is confidential, proprietary or the subject of legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. You may not use any information contained in it. Legal privilege is not waived because you have read this e-mail. For further information on the Beca Group of Companies, visit our web page http://www.beca.co.nz _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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
RE: Exchange server level encryption
They are not the only company that does this, but I am most familiar with their product. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 5:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Sounds like Tumbleweed is going to get a lot more customers now. -Original Message- From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 5:06 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption It would depend on who you are e-mailing to. If you have a limited amount of customers or clients PGP or S/MIME is not a bad implementation. If you have many customers that would not be able to set up PGP for whatever reason you should look at something that will take the message and send it to a web site. The customer would get a message that there is an e-mail waiting for them on your web site and they would go get it. The data would then be transmitted over SSL which a standard web browser can handle. Tumbleweed has a secure redirect product that would handle this for you. It also has the added benefit of being able to handle other forms of encryption and message retention. -Original Message- From: Stevens, Dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:54 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Tumbleweed product does this...it is something that our headquarters wants us to look into...I haven't personally evaluated yet. dave Dave Stevens -IT Network Support- email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange server level encryption Ok, my eyes are going crossed. I have been trying to figure out a decent way to encrypt all outbound email from our company. This is for compliance with HIPAA. Does anyone happen to have any ideas? I have googled and haven't found a product that looks right. I have searched for exchange 2000 encryption, email encryption, etc. Help? TIA 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 server level encryption
That's a terribly simplistic, and somewhat dangerous, view of HIPAA legislation. The requirements for encrypted traffic are very specific to patient information and medical records. I believe it explicitly excludes general information not directly containing either of those items. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Well, basically, any information transmitted outside of our company through a public channel (internet included) has to be encrypted. Neither the specific type of, nor level of is explicitly stated. What I basically want to do is this. If anyone sends email outside of our company, I want it to be grabbed and encrypted. Decryption I would guess would have to happen at the client on the other side. -Original Message- From: Leeann McCallum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption You could have a look at MailMarshal Secure which is an email encryption and decryption gateway. It's an add-on to MailMarshal which provides content filtering, virus checking etc. Are you looking specifically at e-mail encryption or would something like transport layer encryption be sufficient? What does your security policy say? Leeann -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 26 February 2003 9:25 a.m. To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange server level encryption Ok, my eyes are going crossed. I have been trying to figure out a decent way to encrypt all outbound email from our company. This is for compliance with HIPAA. Does anyone happen to have any ideas? I have googled and haven't found a product that looks right. I have searched for exchange 2000 encryption, email encryption, etc. Help? TIA 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] NOTICE - This e-mail is only intended to be read by the named recipient. It may contain information which is confidential, proprietary or the subject of legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. You may not use any information contained in it. Legal privilege is not waived because you have read this e-mail. For further information on the Beca Group of Companies, visit our web page http://www.beca.co.nz _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 server level encryption
What data are you actually trying to encrypt, and where is it coming from? For instance, some of our products offer HIPAA compliance for electronic transactions, using a variety of transports, including SMTP, IIRC. I'd push back at the auditors to make sure that they're clearly defining what needs to be encrypted and what can be sent clear text. It sounds like they're pushing for 100% encryption of all email, which is well beyond my understanding of the expectation under the law. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Argh... Which is pretty much what Eric was saying I think also. I kinda figured this was going to be a tremendous pain in the ass. So let me throw a side idea at ya. How about creating a different virtual server to handle certain domains and have that relay through a gateway to encrypt that traffic. Then we would know who was getting the mail and the would be able to decrypt it. -Original Message- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption I'll assume you are talking about SMIME encryption here. What you want to do is not possible in the general sense. You need the recipient's public key in order to encrypt their mail. You would have to have a predefined list of all possible recipients and their public keys. Even if you had this list, I know of no products that implement this (but then again, I've never looked) You could probably rig something up using PGP on a unix box as an outbound gateway. But then all your recipients would need PGP to read the mail. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange server level encryption Ok, my eyes are going crossed. I have been trying to figure out a decent way to encrypt all outbound email from our company. This is for compliance with HIPAA. Does anyone happen to have any ideas? I have googled and haven't found a product that looks right. I have searched for exchange 2000 encryption, email encryption, etc. Help? TIA 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 server level encryption
Yes it does. Since both Exchange and AD support X.509v3 certs, what about using using something like Verisign's Trusted Messaging offering? http://www.verisign.com/products/trustedMessaging/index.html -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption Doesn't PGP suffer from the same problem, where the recipients need to have a PGP key set up? Erick - Original Message - From: Ken Cornetet [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:38 PM Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption I'll assume you are talking about SMIME encryption here. What you want to do is not possible in the general sense. You need the recipient's public key in order to encrypt their mail. You would have to have a predefined list of all possible recipients and their public keys. Even if you had this list, I know of no products that implement this (but then again, I've never looked) You could probably rig something up using PGP on a unix box as an outbound gateway. But then all your recipients would need PGP to read the mail. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange server level encryption Ok, my eyes are going crossed. I have been trying to figure out a decent way to encrypt all outbound email from our company. This is for compliance with HIPAA. Does anyone happen to have any ideas? I have googled and haven't found a product that looks right. I have searched for exchange 2000 encryption, email encryption, etc. Help? TIA 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 server level encryption
PGP is a de facto standard - its been around long enough and has enough support that it is nearly universal. S/MIME is far less well supported - especially when considering non-Windows systems. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption True. Is PGP a standard? I believe that SMIME is a standard, which seems safer in the long run. However, I'm not involved at all with mail encryption, so I'm not up to speed on these issues. Erick - Original Message - From: Erik Sojka [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:24 PM Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Yup. But PGP is one of the most widely deployed encryption packages and has software for various client and server packages. -Original Message- From: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption Doesn't PGP suffer from the same problem, where the recipients need to have a PGP key set up? Erick - Original Message - From: Ken Cornetet [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:38 PM Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption I'll assume you are talking about SMIME encryption here. What you want to do is not possible in the general sense. You need the recipient's public key in order to encrypt their mail. You would have to have a predefined list of all possible recipients and their public keys. Even if you had this list, I know of no products that implement this (but then again, I've never looked) You could probably rig something up using PGP on a unix box as an outbound gateway. But then all your recipients would need PGP to read the mail. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange server level encryption Ok, my eyes are going crossed. I have been trying to figure out a decent way to encrypt all outbound email from our company. This is for compliance with HIPAA. Does anyone happen to have any ideas? I have googled and haven't found a product that looks right. I have searched for exchange 2000 encryption, email encryption, etc. Help? TIA 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 server level encryption-OT
I'm still waiting for the HIPAA version 2 requirements to come out - like encrypted phone conversation. Since we've been tapping those for the 100+ years they've existed. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption-OT Not an expert on the science behind this essay http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224s=easterbrook022403, but the idea of needing to use nuclear power plants to product the levels of hydrogen needed for 'clean fuel cells' seems to make the water is the only byproduct argument a bit disingenuous. Course as I said, I'm not an expert on the subject so I'm certainly open to knowing where the levels of hydrogen needed for such a thing would come from. Perhaps instead of replacing HIPPA, those companies subject to its regulations need to rethink how and why patient data would need to leave their environment and design secure systems (which e-mail aint) to facilitate that transmittal. Course the reality is companies aren't really interested in protecting patient data, just in being compliant with the various regulatory agencies which govern them. So, following the cheapest route to compliance they encounter the reality that cheap aint easy. On 2/25/03 16:06, Christopher Hummert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok I knew I shouldn't have used that example, cause I knew somewhere we were going to get into a debate about it. In addition I should have said Hydrogen Fuel Cells which is what I was thinking of when I made the statement. As far as the pollution: Fuel cells efficiently convert hydrogen fuel and oxygen from the air into electricity. Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (HFCEVs) emit only water vapor from their exhaust pipes. Demonstrations of HFCEVs have been successful and this technology is expected to displace internal combustion engines in the 21st Century. Which I got from pretty much the first thing I could google up here: http://www.hydrogencomponents.com/altfuel.html -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mellott, Bill Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption-OT Chris Im curious how do you figure this statement? Next thing you'll drag in Hybrids ... It's the same problem you have with cars today. Gasoline engines produce pollution, so to change this we could move to hydrogen engines which are pollution free. But the infrastructure isn't there. While I agree hydrogen engines maybe more friendly...they do produce pollution AND the infrastructure you correctly point out which is not there really WILL in fact produce pollution to make the pieces/stuff required for the cleaner part. Let me ask this..IF say you put a refrigerator in a sealed room...plug it in...leave the Fridge door openwhat happens in the room? there no free lunch...just more healthy... ;-) bill -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Except that none of our clients have heard about PGP. That's one of the problems with HIPPA, the solutions they want don't exist for a device that was developed back in the 60's (I think I got the time right, I'm not going to check though). It's the same problem you have with cars today. Gasoline engines produce pollution, so to change this we could move to hydrogen engines which are pollution free. But the infrastructure isn't there. Same thing with e-mail and encryption. That's one of the reasons HIPPA deadlines keeps getting pushed back. Then with a solution like PGP you have to teach the users how to use it. That's a nightmare that I don't ever want to repeat again. Hell half of the users I taught have a hard time figuring out what the start button is, and it's right there in front of their face. The big problem with HIPPA was that it was designed by bureaucrats (who BTW were probably the same users that have a hard time with the start button thing) that wanted to do something to protect the people that vote for them. Except there wasn't a major problem to begin with. Sure there were a few slight mishaps here and there, but the industry was doing a fine job of learning from those mistakes and creating new solutions to prevent those from happening again. In addition to the design problems with HIPPA, you have the fact that it's become so bloated that no one knows exactly what it is or what you need to do. While you run into
RE: Backup Domain Controller causing problems???
I've seen initial AD replication take as much as 24 hours, even over relatively stable and fast links. Bring it up and pause it's netlogon service, and let it spin for a few days. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Mike Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:30 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Backup Domain Controller causing problems??? I am sorry about that. We are 100% 'Windows 2000 Server' - so yes - Active Directory. I know that Primary and Secondary sort of went away as far as the terminology goes... But of course, in order to establish the new Domain, I had to flag one server as the New Forest - and then the server that I refer to as the Backup Domain Controller - is simply an Additional domain controller for an existing domain. I truly thought that was the long and short of it - so if there is addition functions to perform, would you be able to point me in the right direction? Thanks, Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 6:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Backup Domain Controller causing problems??? I'm not clear on what your network is - W2K Active Directory, native or mixed? In AD there is no such thing as a BDC, they're all DCs. Is that what you built? Or is yours a BDC left over from an NT4 domain? -Original Message- From: Mike Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Backup Domain Controller causing problems??? Hello, Could someone please throw some ideas my way, as to why having a Secondary Domain Controller active on the network, could mess up authentication? If I have our BDC turned on and active on the network, and our users attempt to fire up their Outlook from the outside (using Exchange RPC Server published through our ISA Server), they are unable to authenticate. However, if I turn off our BDC, then they can authenticate just fine. This is also the case from time to time, when workstations are initially turned on, and perform their initial login into the Domain. It's almost as if the BDC, is responding first to the authentication requests, and doesn't have a current copy of all the user/password information. I say that, because by turning off the BDC, everything works fine once again. This may be my ignorance - regarding how Domain Controllers differ from NT4.0 versus Windows 2000 networks. It's my understanding that a Backup Domain Controller - simply makes a copy of all items in Active Directory - users, computers, passwords, etc. and then responds to requests if the Primary Domain Controller doesn't respond in a timely manner. Is there anything else, other than using the setup wizard, and joining the Forest, that I need to do in order to properly set up a Backup Domain Controller? I would think, that going through the setup wizard, and simply letting it run on the network, was all there was to it. Am I missing something here? Do I need to initiate some kind of replication process, or synchronization in order to get the BDC current with it's information? (provided that this is even the problem?) If anyone could offer *anything* regarding this subject, I would be grateful, as I see it to be very important to have our BDC operational in case our PDC ever dies. 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 server level encryption
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, at 9:33am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It sounds like they're pushing for 100% encryption of all email, which is well beyond my understanding of the expectation under the law. While I don't know about this particular case, I've seen such reactions before in similar, non-HIPPA cases. It goes something like this: Security becomes a concern. Of course, you cannot have security without a good security policy that defines your information assets, risks, threats, counter-measures, and so on. Nor can you have security without user understanding and education. So the IT guys tell the PHBs that their existing policy of driving blindly through the fog is a bad idea. The PHBs react by coming up with crap ideas like everything must be encrypted (without even knowing what encryption actually *is*). Actually fixing their management structure would cost too much. -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do | | not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. | | All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 server level encryption
Yup. Happens all too often. Fortunately, we have a great InfoSec guy here, who reports directly to the CIO, and the CIO has fairly broad veto power over almost any business initiatives. Doesn't hurt that the CIO is brilliant either. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, at 9:33am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It sounds like they're pushing for 100% encryption of all email, which is well beyond my understanding of the expectation under the law. While I don't know about this particular case, I've seen such reactions before in similar, non-HIPPA cases. It goes something like this: Security becomes a concern. Of course, you cannot have security without a good security policy that defines your information assets, risks, threats, counter-measures, and so on. Nor can you have security without user understanding and education. So the IT guys tell the PHBs that their existing policy of driving blindly through the fog is a bad idea. The PHBs react by coming up with crap ideas like everything must be encrypted (without even knowing what encryption actually *is*). Actually fixing their management structure would cost too much. -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do | | not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. | | All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 server level encryption-OT
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, at 8:29pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What if the shipping company uses hydrogen fuel cells? Oh my God. The humanity. The humanity. Fun fact of the day: Most of the people who were died in the Hindenburg disaster (30 or so) were killed when they hit the ground after jumping out of the gondola. All but two of the passengers who stayed onboard and rode the airship to the ground lived to tell their tale. -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do | | not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. | | All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 server level encryption
You got something on your nose there, Rog. ;) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Yup. Happens all too often. Fortunately, we have a great InfoSec guy here, who reports directly to the CIO, and the CIO has fairly broad veto power over almost any business initiatives. Doesn't hurt that the CIO is brilliant either. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, at 9:33am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It sounds like they're pushing for 100% encryption of all email, which is well beyond my understanding of the expectation under the law. While I don't know about this particular case, I've seen such reactions before in similar, non-HIPPA cases. It goes something like this: Security becomes a concern. Of course, you cannot have security without a good security policy that defines your information assets, risks, threats, counter-measures, and so on. Nor can you have security without user understanding and education. So the IT guys tell the PHBs that their existing policy of driving blindly through the fog is a bad idea. The PHBs react by coming up with crap ideas like everything must be encrypted (without even knowing what encryption actually *is*). Actually fixing their management structure would cost too much. -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do | | not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. | | All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 server level encryption
Nope. Just happen to be lucky to work with some *really* sharp people. And I do like working for a CIO with a backbone. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption You got something on your nose there, Rog. ;) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Yup. Happens all too often. Fortunately, we have a great InfoSec guy here, who reports directly to the CIO, and the CIO has fairly broad veto power over almost any business initiatives. Doesn't hurt that the CIO is brilliant either. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, at 9:33am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It sounds like they're pushing for 100% encryption of all email, which is well beyond my understanding of the expectation under the law. While I don't know about this particular case, I've seen such reactions before in similar, non-HIPPA cases. It goes something like this: Security becomes a concern. Of course, you cannot have security without a good security policy that defines your information assets, risks, threats, counter-measures, and so on. Nor can you have security without user understanding and education. So the IT guys tell the PHBs that their existing policy of driving blindly through the fog is a bad idea. The PHBs react by coming up with crap ideas like everything must be encrypted (without even knowing what encryption actually *is*). Actually fixing their management structure would cost too much. -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do | | not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. | | All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 server level encryption-OT
No I wasn't trying to raise a debate (I don't debate well..wish I could I might have a better chance against my better half)..though I knew someone might... I just get curious at peoples perceptions...and how much they buy into what is often a lot of media hype...info conveniently not mentioned etc... Like back when GM did the electric car thing..it was like 90' when I was back in engineering school some the other geeks and me did up a quick calc on cost.. initial cost of vehicle, amount of batteries the thing usedlife of batteries as stated in the article then...change over cycle..etc... we did not take into account back then the Fact that after the batteries are dead/beat the disposal cost due to the fact that batteries are hazardous waste..at least not from the monetary stand pointetc I'm not saying new technologies are good or bad...just curious what and how much people really take into accountabout stuff. -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 5:06 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption-OT Ok I knew I shouldn't have used that example, cause I knew somewhere we were going to get into a debate about it. In addition I should have said Hydrogen Fuel Cells which is what I was thinking of when I made the statement. As far as the pollution: Fuel cells efficiently convert hydrogen fuel and oxygen from the air into electricity. Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (HFCEVs) emit only water vapor from their exhaust pipes. Demonstrations of HFCEVs have been successful and this technology is expected to displace internal combustion engines in the 21st Century. Which I got from pretty much the first thing I could google up here: http://www.hydrogencomponents.com/altfuel.html -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mellott, Bill Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption-OT Chris Im curious how do you figure this statement? Next thing you'll drag in Hybrids ... It's the same problem you have with cars today. Gasoline engines produce pollution, so to change this we could move to hydrogen engines which are pollution free. But the infrastructure isn't there. While I agree hydrogen engines maybe more friendly...they do produce pollution AND the infrastructure you correctly point out which is not there really WILL in fact produce pollution to make the pieces/stuff required for the cleaner part. Let me ask this..IF say you put a refrigerator in a sealed room...plug it in...leave the Fridge door openwhat happens in the room? there no free lunch...just more healthy... ;-) bill -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Except that none of our clients have heard about PGP. That's one of the problems with HIPPA, the solutions they want don't exist for a device that was developed back in the 60's (I think I got the time right, I'm not going to check though). It's the same problem you have with cars today. Gasoline engines produce pollution, so to change this we could move to hydrogen engines which are pollution free. But the infrastructure isn't there. Same thing with e-mail and encryption. That's one of the reasons HIPPA deadlines keeps getting pushed back. Then with a solution like PGP you have to teach the users how to use it. That's a nightmare that I don't ever want to repeat again. Hell half of the users I taught have a hard time figuring out what the start button is, and it's right there in front of their face. The big problem with HIPPA was that it was designed by bureaucrats (who BTW were probably the same users that have a hard time with the start button thing) that wanted to do something to protect the people that vote for them. Except there wasn't a major problem to begin with. Sure there were a few slight mishaps here and there, but the industry was doing a fine job of learning from those mistakes and creating new solutions to prevent those from happening again. In addition to the design problems with HIPPA, you have the fact that it's become so bloated that no one knows exactly what it is or what you need to do. While you run into some so called HIPPA expert that says you need to do one thing, you can always find another that says you don't need to do that. Flat out HIPPA needs to go, and be replaced by something that's a little more well thought out. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Yup. But PGP is one of the most widely deployed encryption packages and has software for various client and server packages.
RE: Exchange server level encryption
The problem with all of this is that a large encryption infrastructure that covers multiple vendors is a nightmare that I don't even want to start working with. Having some very high level experience with encryption this is a big game, and there is no real way to work it out for this situation. Our 1st response was across the board e-mail encryption, however you have to ask yourself, does this really protect PHI. If you share your encryption with all of your external users, not all of whom are PHI related sites, then your user selects the wrong recipient presto you now have a HIPPA violation. All the policies in the world will not prevent this. So then you have to start asking yourself, how do I cover this. One of the options that I asked about was if we had an internal policy (it's government, they love policy) that prohibited the external transmission of PHI via e-mail. The angry comments I got from our personnel was just amazing, but after hearing them some were valid. So the next step was that all PHI e-mail transfers would be done as attachments, utilizing strong file level encryption (not self-decrypting) and strong passwords. Next step how do you work out the transfer of passwords, who makes the passwords, who controls the passwords. This is not going to be easy. Do we need HIPPA, well probably we do, however most of what HIPPA covers from a technical standpoint is just in keeping with best practices. The one thing HIPPA is not going to beat is human nature, and human nature is why we have the HIPPA violations to begin with. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, at 9:33am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It sounds like they're pushing for 100% encryption of all email, which is well beyond my understanding of the expectation under the law. While I don't know about this particular case, I've seen such reactions before in similar, non-HIPPA cases. It goes something like this: Security becomes a concern. Of course, you cannot have security without a good security policy that defines your information assets, risks, threats, counter-measures, and so on. Nor can you have security without user understanding and education. So the IT guys tell the PHBs that their existing policy of driving blindly through the fog is a bad idea. The PHBs react by coming up with crap ideas like everything must be encrypted (without even knowing what encryption actually *is*). Actually fixing their management structure would cost too much. -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do | | not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. | | All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 server level encryption-OT
Take exception all you like, for the vast majority of companies involved in health care, patient information is not a priority. Nice that it is in your organization, but yours is the exception rather than the rule I assure you. Think insurance companies care about patient confidentiality? Hell, they don't even care about patients. Security second to the pentagon? Perhaps taking a page from their book and setting up public and private networks initially would have solved these types of issues. If protecting patient data had been a priority from the get go, I'd expect this would already be in place. Instead, maintaining that confidentiality was an idea given lip service to while measures were put in place which were known to trade off security for expediency. As noble as your organization's intentions are, a thimble full of wine in a barrel of sewer water, still gets you a barrel of sewer water. That's why extremely restrictive regulations were enacted. On 2/26/03 7:19, Chinnery, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris, I take exception to your comments in your second paragraph that the reality is that companies don't really care about protecting patient data. I work in a hospital and have met many people from other hospitals through seminars, meetings, etc. To say that we don't care is patently false. Patient confidentiality is a priority, second only to patient care. Our hospital has zero tolerance for PHI disclosure. A nurse blabs to someone about a patient and boom! she's fired. I know, I've seen it happen. The trouble with HIPAA is that they seem to want hospitals and healthcare organizations to be almost as secure as the Pentagon. Our administration hired a big name outfit to give their recomendations. I had to read through 23 documents from them. And some of them, the suggestions, were insane. One suggested (although it said it was optional) searching all purses and bags that patients or visitors to the hospital. I guess they're afraid someone would sneak in a floppy to be used to copy patient data. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption-OT Not an expert on the science behind this essay http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224=easterbrook022403 http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224s=easterbrook022403 , but the idea of needing to use nuclear power plants to product the levels of hydrogen needed for 'clean fuel cells' seems to make the water is the only byproduct argument a bit disingenuous. Course as I said, I'm not an expert on the subject so I'm certainly open to knowing where the levels of hydrogen needed for such a thing would come from. Perhaps instead of replacing HIPPA, those companies subject to its regulations need to rethink how and why patient data would need to leave their environment and design secure systems (which e-mail aint) to facilitate that transmittal. Course the reality is companies aren't really interested in protecting patient data, just in being compliant with the various regulatory agencies which govern them. So, following the cheapest route to compliance they encounter the reality that cheap aint easy. On 2/25/03 16:06, Christopher Hummert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok I knew I shouldn't have used that example, cause I knew somewhere we were going to get into a debate about it. In addition I should have said Hydrogen Fuel Cells which is what I was thinking of when I made the statement. As far as the pollution: Fuel cells efficiently convert hydrogen fuel and oxygen from the air into electricity. Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (HFCEVs) emit only water vapor from their exhaust pipes. Demonstrations of HFCEVs have been successful and this technology is expected to displace internal combustion engines in the 21st Century. Which I got from pretty much the first thing I could google up here: http://www.hydrogencomponents.com/altfuel.html _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
First Server in Site Question (Again)
I think my question got lost in the flurry of server level encryption messages. Still trying to find out if my first server is ready for removal. Thanks. Ben Parrnelli Network Administrator Comm Data Directorate MAGTF Training Command 29 Palms, CA 92278 -Original Message- From: Parrnelli GS11 Ben T [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: First Server in Site Question Exchange 5.5 SP4 NT 4.0 SP6 SRP I'm following Q152959 to move my first server to a new server. I've completed all the steps with the exception of moving the routing calculation server, as this was done previously. I've waited several days, however, when I check the raw properties I still see the original server in the site-folder-server properties. Does this value need to show the new server before I remove the old, or will the value always be the original no matter where I move the roles. Thanks. Ben Parrnelli Network Administrator Comm Data Directorate MAGTF Training Command 29 Palms, CA 92278 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 server level encryption
Well, we are an ambulance company, so just about anything we would send outside of the company would be patient related. Of course not 100%, but probably 80%. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption That's a terribly simplistic, and somewhat dangerous, view of HIPAA legislation. The requirements for encrypted traffic are very specific to patient information and medical records. I believe it explicitly excludes general information not directly containing either of those items. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Well, basically, any information transmitted outside of our company through a public channel (internet included) has to be encrypted. Neither the specific type of, nor level of is explicitly stated. What I basically want to do is this. If anyone sends email outside of our company, I want it to be grabbed and encrypted. Decryption I would guess would have to happen at the client on the other side. -Original Message- From: Leeann McCallum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption You could have a look at MailMarshal Secure which is an email encryption and decryption gateway. It's an add-on to MailMarshal which provides content filtering, virus checking etc. Are you looking specifically at e-mail encryption or would something like transport layer encryption be sufficient? What does your security policy say? Leeann -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 26 February 2003 9:25 a.m. To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange server level encryption Ok, my eyes are going crossed. I have been trying to figure out a decent way to encrypt all outbound email from our company. This is for compliance with HIPAA. Does anyone happen to have any ideas? I have googled and haven't found a product that looks right. I have searched for exchange 2000 encryption, email encryption, etc. Help? TIA 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] NOTICE - This e-mail is only intended to be read by the named recipient. It may contain information which is confidential, proprietary or the subject of legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. You may not use any information contained in it. Legal privilege is not waived because you have read this e-mail. For further information on the Beca Group of Companies, visit our web page http://www.beca.co.nz _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: First Server in Site Question (Again)
If you have followed all the steps in the document, then the next step is to shut down the first server. Leave it powered off and watch what happens. Once you are sure everything is working right, then go ahead and remove it. I always follow this procedure. If you just power down and you run into issues, no problem, power up again and figure it out. -Original Message- From: Parrnelli GS11 Ben T [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions I think my question got lost in the flurry of server level encryption messages. Still trying to find out if my first server is ready for removal. Thanks. Ben Parrnelli Network Administrator Comm Data Directorate MAGTF Training Command 29 Palms, CA 92278 -Original Message- From: Parrnelli GS11 Ben T [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: First Server in Site Question Exchange 5.5 SP4 NT 4.0 SP6 SRP I'm following Q152959 to move my first server to a new server. I've completed all the steps with the exception of moving the routing calculation server, as this was done previously. I've waited several days, however, when I check the raw properties I still see the original server in the site-folder-server properties. Does this value need to show the new server before I remove the old, or will the value always be the original no matter where I move the roles. Thanks. Ben Parrnelli Network Administrator Comm Data Directorate MAGTF Training Command 29 Palms, CA 92278 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 server level encryption
I need an MF bambulance! -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Well, we are an ambulance company, so just about anything we would send outside of the company would be patient related. Of course not 100%, but probably 80%. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption That's a terribly simplistic, and somewhat dangerous, view of HIPAA legislation. The requirements for encrypted traffic are very specific to patient information and medical records. I believe it explicitly excludes general information not directly containing either of those items. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Well, basically, any information transmitted outside of our company through a public channel (internet included) has to be encrypted. Neither the specific type of, nor level of is explicitly stated. What I basically want to do is this. If anyone sends email outside of our company, I want it to be grabbed and encrypted. Decryption I would guess would have to happen at the client on the other side. -Original Message- From: Leeann McCallum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption You could have a look at MailMarshal Secure which is an email encryption and decryption gateway. It's an add-on to MailMarshal which provides content filtering, virus checking etc. Are you looking specifically at e-mail encryption or would something like transport layer encryption be sufficient? What does your security policy say? Leeann -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 26 February 2003 9:25 a.m. To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange server level encryption Ok, my eyes are going crossed. I have been trying to figure out a decent way to encrypt all outbound email from our company. This is for compliance with HIPAA. Does anyone happen to have any ideas? I have googled and haven't found a product that looks right. I have searched for exchange 2000 encryption, email encryption, etc. Help? TIA 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] NOTICE - This e-mail is only intended to be read by the named recipient. It may contain information which is confidential, proprietary or the subject of legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. You may not use any information contained in it. Legal privilege is not waived because you have read this e-mail. For further information on the Beca Group of Companies, visit our web page http://www.beca.co.nz _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Exchange server level encryption
Well, that isn't exactly like that. But it seems as though there also isn't an easy wau to determine what to encrypt on the fly.. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption What data are you actually trying to encrypt, and where is it coming from? For instance, some of our products offer HIPAA compliance for electronic transactions, using a variety of transports, including SMTP, IIRC. I'd push back at the auditors to make sure that they're clearly defining what needs to be encrypted and what can be sent clear text. It sounds like they're pushing for 100% encryption of all email, which is well beyond my understanding of the expectation under the law. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Argh... Which is pretty much what Eric was saying I think also. I kinda figured this was going to be a tremendous pain in the ass. So let me throw a side idea at ya. How about creating a different virtual server to handle certain domains and have that relay through a gateway to encrypt that traffic. Then we would know who was getting the mail and the would be able to decrypt it. -Original Message- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption I'll assume you are talking about SMIME encryption here. What you want to do is not possible in the general sense. You need the recipient's public key in order to encrypt their mail. You would have to have a predefined list of all possible recipients and their public keys. Even if you had this list, I know of no products that implement this (but then again, I've never looked) You could probably rig something up using PGP on a unix box as an outbound gateway. But then all your recipients would need PGP to read the mail. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange server level encryption Ok, my eyes are going crossed. I have been trying to figure out a decent way to encrypt all outbound email from our company. This is for compliance with HIPAA. Does anyone happen to have any ideas? I have googled and haven't found a product that looks right. I have searched for exchange 2000 encryption, email encryption, etc. Help? TIA 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: First Server in Site Question (Again)
Will do. Thanks for the response. Ben Parrnelli Network Administrator Comm Data Directorate MAGTF Training Command 29 Palms, CA 92278 -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: First Server in Site Question (Again) If you have followed all the steps in the document, then the next step is to shut down the first server. Leave it powered off and watch what happens. Once you are sure everything is working right, then go ahead and remove it. I always follow this procedure. If you just power down and you run into issues, no problem, power up again and figure it out. -Original Message- From: Parrnelli GS11 Ben T [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions I think my question got lost in the flurry of server level encryption messages. Still trying to find out if my first server is ready for removal. Thanks. Ben Parrnelli Network Administrator Comm Data Directorate MAGTF Training Command 29 Palms, CA 92278 -Original Message- From: Parrnelli GS11 Ben T [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: First Server in Site Question Exchange 5.5 SP4 NT 4.0 SP6 SRP I'm following Q152959 to move my first server to a new server. I've completed all the steps with the exception of moving the routing calculation server, as this was done previously. I've waited several days, however, when I check the raw properties I still see the original server in the site-folder-server properties. Does this value need to show the new server before I remove the old, or will the value always be the original no matter where I move the roles. Thanks. Ben Parrnelli Network Administrator Comm Data Directorate MAGTF Training Command 29 Palms, CA 92278 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: First Server in Site Question (Again)
BTW, I usually wait about a month. I'm cautious like that. Its REALLY HARD to go back once you remove the server, so this is the cautious route. -Original Message- From: Parrnelli GS11 Ben T [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Will do. Thanks for the response. Ben Parrnelli Network Administrator Comm Data Directorate MAGTF Training Command 29 Palms, CA 92278 -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: First Server in Site Question (Again) If you have followed all the steps in the document, then the next step is to shut down the first server. Leave it powered off and watch what happens. Once you are sure everything is working right, then go ahead and remove it. I always follow this procedure. If you just power down and you run into issues, no problem, power up again and figure it out. -Original Message- From: Parrnelli GS11 Ben T [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions I think my question got lost in the flurry of server level encryption messages. Still trying to find out if my first server is ready for removal. Thanks. Ben Parrnelli Network Administrator Comm Data Directorate MAGTF Training Command 29 Palms, CA 92278 -Original Message- From: Parrnelli GS11 Ben T [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: First Server in Site Question Exchange 5.5 SP4 NT 4.0 SP6 SRP I'm following Q152959 to move my first server to a new server. I've completed all the steps with the exception of moving the routing calculation server, as this was done previously. I've waited several days, however, when I check the raw properties I still see the original server in the site-folder-server properties. Does this value need to show the new server before I remove the old, or will the value always be the original no matter where I move the roles. Thanks. Ben Parrnelli Network Administrator Comm Data Directorate MAGTF Training Command 29 Palms, CA 92278 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
duplicate emails
Hello all We have recently upgraded from exchange 5.5 to 2000. Friday we placed the OWA server is outside the firewall and switched it to do the routing of smtp email. Since we made the switch Friday night, the custom recipients receive duplicate emails only from emails generated outside the company. Emails generated from within the company are not duplicated. Any ideas on what is happening? Thanks .+-¦‹-Šxm¶Ÿÿà ,Â)Ãœr‰¿Âë(º· ýì\…öª†ÂÈb½ë!¶Úÿ 0³ §‘ÊþzÂȱæ«r´:.ž±Êâm[h•æ¯yì\…©à z[,Ã)är‰„ÅÈZž‹ŠËZvh§–+-ižÌ2žG(
RE: Exchange server level encryption
Right. It goes back to Ed's quote about there seldom being technical solutions to behavioral problems. Part of these regulations requires strongly retraining all employees that they need to keep patient information out of emails. Things that require patient information, like billing information, shouldn't traverse email in the first place, rather it should be handled at the billing system level. At that point, all an email has to contain is an invoice number or a payment number and you're not passing any confidential information. HIPAA isn't something for which completely technical solutions exist. This is one of those places. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Well, that isn't exactly like that. But it seems as though there also isn't an easy wau to determine what to encrypt on the fly.. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption What data are you actually trying to encrypt, and where is it coming from? For instance, some of our products offer HIPAA compliance for electronic transactions, using a variety of transports, including SMTP, IIRC. I'd push back at the auditors to make sure that they're clearly defining what needs to be encrypted and what can be sent clear text. It sounds like they're pushing for 100% encryption of all email, which is well beyond my understanding of the expectation under the law. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Argh... Which is pretty much what Eric was saying I think also. I kinda figured this was going to be a tremendous pain in the ass. So let me throw a side idea at ya. How about creating a different virtual server to handle certain domains and have that relay through a gateway to encrypt that traffic. Then we would know who was getting the mail and the would be able to decrypt it. -Original Message- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption I'll assume you are talking about SMIME encryption here. What you want to do is not possible in the general sense. You need the recipient's public key in order to encrypt their mail. You would have to have a predefined list of all possible recipients and their public keys. Even if you had this list, I know of no products that implement this (but then again, I've never looked) You could probably rig something up using PGP on a unix box as an outbound gateway. But then all your recipients would need PGP to read the mail. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange server level encryption Ok, my eyes are going crossed. I have been trying to figure out a decent way to encrypt all outbound email from our company. This is for compliance with HIPAA. Does anyone happen to have any ideas? I have googled and haven't found a product that looks right. I have searched for exchange 2000 encryption, email encryption, etc. Help? TIA 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Outlook Web Access Interface.
That happened because the first access to the mailbox was using a client that was configured for Arabic. You can change the folder names using an old Exchange 5.0 client. The easiest way for you to do this might just be to create a new mailbox, though. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michel Fayad Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 11:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Outlook Web Access Interface. Dear all, I have a question concerning Outlook Web Access. The interface for Outlook Web Access is in Arabic for only one user. So Inbox is written in Arabic. Is there a way to make it display back in English? We are using Windows 2000 and Exchange 2000. Best Regards, Michel Fayad _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 server level encryption-OT
I work for a Insurance company. One of our biggest priorities is the protection of patient information. Don't generalize a whole industry. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption-OT Take exception all you like, for the vast majority of companies involved in health care, patient information is not a priority. Nice that it is in your organization, but yours is the exception rather than the rule I assure you. Think insurance companies care about patient confidentiality? Hell, they don't even care about patients. Security second to the pentagon? Perhaps taking a page from their book and setting up public and private networks initially would have solved these types of issues. If protecting patient data had been a priority from the get go, I'd expect this would already be in place. Instead, maintaining that confidentiality was an idea given lip service to while measures were put in place which were known to trade off security for expediency. As noble as your organization's intentions are, a thimble full of wine in a barrel of sewer water, still gets you a barrel of sewer water. That's why extremely restrictive regulations were enacted. On 2/26/03 7:19, Chinnery, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris, I take exception to your comments in your second paragraph that the reality is that companies don't really care about protecting patient data. I work in a hospital and have met many people from other hospitals through seminars, meetings, etc. To say that we don't care is patently false. Patient confidentiality is a priority, second only to patient care. Our hospital has zero tolerance for PHI disclosure. A nurse blabs to someone about a patient and boom! she's fired. I know, I've seen it happen. The trouble with HIPAA is that they seem to want hospitals and healthcare organizations to be almost as secure as the Pentagon. Our administration hired a big name outfit to give their recomendations. I had to read through 23 documents from them. And some of them, the suggestions, were insane. One suggested (although it said it was optional) searching all purses and bags that patients or visitors to the hospital. I guess they're afraid someone would sneak in a floppy to be used to copy patient data. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption-OT Not an expert on the science behind this essay http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224=easterbrook022403 http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224s=easterbrook022403 , but the idea of needing to use nuclear power plants to product the levels of hydrogen needed for 'clean fuel cells' seems to make the water is the only byproduct argument a bit disingenuous. Course as I said, I'm not an expert on the subject so I'm certainly open to knowing where the levels of hydrogen needed for such a thing would come from. Perhaps instead of replacing HIPPA, those companies subject to its regulations need to rethink how and why patient data would need to leave their environment and design secure systems (which e-mail aint) to facilitate that transmittal. Course the reality is companies aren't really interested in protecting patient data, just in being compliant with the various regulatory agencies which govern them. So, following the cheapest route to compliance they encounter the reality that cheap aint easy. On 2/25/03 16:06, Christopher Hummert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok I knew I shouldn't have used that example, cause I knew somewhere we were going to get into a debate about it. In addition I should have said Hydrogen Fuel Cells which is what I was thinking of when I made the statement. As far as the pollution: Fuel cells efficiently convert hydrogen fuel and oxygen from the air into electricity. Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (HFCEVs) emit only water vapor from their exhaust pipes. Demonstrations of HFCEVs have been successful and this technology is expected to displace internal combustion engines in the 21st Century. Which I got from pretty much the first thing I could google up here: http://www.hydrogencomponents.com/altfuel.html _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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:
RE: duplicate emails
I'm not sure that I understand your question. The custom recipients are people outside your organization that are represented in your GAL, correct? If so, then I'm not sure why you're concerned about mail that people outside your company are getting from other people outside your company. Also, have you checked to see if the duplicate messages have the same message ID? -Original Message- From: Michael Ahlfont [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: duplicate emails Hello all We have recently upgraded from exchange 5.5 to 2000. Friday we placed the OWA server is outside the firewall and switched it to do the routing of smtp email. Since we made the switch Friday night, the custom recipients receive duplicate emails only from emails generated outside the company. Emails generated from within the company are not duplicated. Any ideas on what is happening? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 server level encryption
Yup. Setting up encrypted mail, whatever that is, isn't going to fix the problem. If all e-mail must be encrypted, you pretty much ought to disconnect it from the Internet, because the vast majority of your correspondents will not be able to communicate with you. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Right. It goes back to Ed's quote about there seldom being technical solutions to behavioral problems. Part of these regulations requires strongly retraining all employees that they need to keep patient information out of emails. Things that require patient information, like billing information, shouldn't traverse email in the first place, rather it should be handled at the billing system level. At that point, all an email has to contain is an invoice number or a payment number and you're not passing any confidential information. HIPAA isn't something for which completely technical solutions exist. This is one of those places. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Well, that isn't exactly like that. But it seems as though there also isn't an easy wau to determine what to encrypt on the fly.. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption What data are you actually trying to encrypt, and where is it coming from? For instance, some of our products offer HIPAA compliance for electronic transactions, using a variety of transports, including SMTP, IIRC. I'd push back at the auditors to make sure that they're clearly defining what needs to be encrypted and what can be sent clear text. It sounds like they're pushing for 100% encryption of all email, which is well beyond my understanding of the expectation under the law. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Argh... Which is pretty much what Eric was saying I think also. I kinda figured this was going to be a tremendous pain in the ass. So let me throw a side idea at ya. How about creating a different virtual server to handle certain domains and have that relay through a gateway to encrypt that traffic. Then we would know who was getting the mail and the would be able to decrypt it. -Original Message- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption I'll assume you are talking about SMIME encryption here. What you want to do is not possible in the general sense. You need the recipient's public key in order to encrypt their mail. You would have to have a predefined list of all possible recipients and their public keys. Even if you had this list, I know of no products that implement this (but then again, I've never looked) You could probably rig something up using PGP on a unix box as an outbound gateway. But then all your recipients would need PGP to read the mail. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange server level encryption Ok, my eyes are going crossed. I have been trying to figure out a decent way to encrypt all outbound email from our company. This is for compliance with HIPAA. Does anyone happen to have any ideas? I have googled and haven't found a product that looks right. I have searched for exchange 2000 encryption, email encryption, etc. Help? TIA 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: Exchange server level encryption-OT
Very hard to accept, considering the source. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Hummert Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption-OT I work for a Insurance company. One of our biggest priorities is the protection of patient information. Don't generalize a whole industry. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption-OT Take exception all you like, for the vast majority of companies involved in health care, patient information is not a priority. Nice that it is in your organization, but yours is the exception rather than the rule I assure you. Think insurance companies care about patient confidentiality? Hell, they don't even care about patients. Security second to the pentagon? Perhaps taking a page from their book and setting up public and private networks initially would have solved these types of issues. If protecting patient data had been a priority from the get go, I'd expect this would already be in place. Instead, maintaining that confidentiality was an idea given lip service to while measures were put in place which were known to trade off security for expediency. As noble as your organization's intentions are, a thimble full of wine in a barrel of sewer water, still gets you a barrel of sewer water. That's why extremely restrictive regulations were enacted. On 2/26/03 7:19, Chinnery, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris, I take exception to your comments in your second paragraph that the reality is that companies don't really care about protecting patient data. I work in a hospital and have met many people from other hospitals through seminars, meetings, etc. To say that we don't care is patently false. Patient confidentiality is a priority, second only to patient care. Our hospital has zero tolerance for PHI disclosure. A nurse blabs to someone about a patient and boom! she's fired. I know, I've seen it happen. The trouble with HIPAA is that they seem to want hospitals and healthcare organizations to be almost as secure as the Pentagon. Our administration hired a big name outfit to give their recomendations. I had to read through 23 documents from them. And some of them, the suggestions, were insane. One suggested (although it said it was optional) searching all purses and bags that patients or visitors to the hospital. I guess they're afraid someone would sneak in a floppy to be used to copy patient data. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption-OT Not an expert on the science behind this essay http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224=easterbrook022403 http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224s=easterbrook022403 , but the idea of needing to use nuclear power plants to product the levels of hydrogen needed for 'clean fuel cells' seems to make the water is the only byproduct argument a bit disingenuous. Course as I said, I'm not an expert on the subject so I'm certainly open to knowing where the levels of hydrogen needed for such a thing would come from. Perhaps instead of replacing HIPPA, those companies subject to its regulations need to rethink how and why patient data would need to leave their environment and design secure systems (which e-mail aint) to facilitate that transmittal. Course the reality is companies aren't really interested in protecting patient data, just in being compliant with the various regulatory agencies which govern them. So, following the cheapest route to compliance they encounter the reality that cheap aint easy. On 2/25/03 16:06, Christopher Hummert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok I knew I shouldn't have used that example, cause I knew somewhere we were going to get into a debate about it. In addition I should have said Hydrogen Fuel Cells which is what I was thinking of when I made the statement. As far as the pollution: Fuel cells efficiently convert hydrogen fuel and oxygen from the air into electricity. Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (HFCEVs) emit only water vapor from their exhaust pipes. Demonstrations of HFCEVs have been successful and this technology is expected to displace internal combustion engines in the 21st Century. Which I got from pretty much the first thing I could google up here: http://www.hydrogencomponents.com/altfuel.html _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives:
RE: Exchange server level encryption-OT
All your trying to do is to start another flame war. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption-OT Very hard to accept, considering the source. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Hummert Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption-OT I work for a Insurance company. One of our biggest priorities is the protection of patient information. Don't generalize a whole industry. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption-OT Take exception all you like, for the vast majority of companies involved in health care, patient information is not a priority. Nice that it is in your organization, but yours is the exception rather than the rule I assure you. Think insurance companies care about patient confidentiality? Hell, they don't even care about patients. Security second to the pentagon? Perhaps taking a page from their book and setting up public and private networks initially would have solved these types of issues. If protecting patient data had been a priority from the get go, I'd expect this would already be in place. Instead, maintaining that confidentiality was an idea given lip service to while measures were put in place which were known to trade off security for expediency. As noble as your organization's intentions are, a thimble full of wine in a barrel of sewer water, still gets you a barrel of sewer water. That's why extremely restrictive regulations were enacted. On 2/26/03 7:19, Chinnery, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris, I take exception to your comments in your second paragraph that the reality is that companies don't really care about protecting patient data. I work in a hospital and have met many people from other hospitals through seminars, meetings, etc. To say that we don't care is patently false. Patient confidentiality is a priority, second only to patient care. Our hospital has zero tolerance for PHI disclosure. A nurse blabs to someone about a patient and boom! she's fired. I know, I've seen it happen. The trouble with HIPAA is that they seem to want hospitals and healthcare organizations to be almost as secure as the Pentagon. Our administration hired a big name outfit to give their recomendations. I had to read through 23 documents from them. And some of them, the suggestions, were insane. One suggested (although it said it was optional) searching all purses and bags that patients or visitors to the hospital. I guess they're afraid someone would sneak in a floppy to be used to copy patient data. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption-OT Not an expert on the science behind this essay http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224=easterbrook022403 http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224s=easterbrook022403 , but the idea of needing to use nuclear power plants to product the levels of hydrogen needed for 'clean fuel cells' seems to make the water is the only byproduct argument a bit disingenuous. Course as I said, I'm not an expert on the subject so I'm certainly open to knowing where the levels of hydrogen needed for such a thing would come from. Perhaps instead of replacing HIPPA, those companies subject to its regulations need to rethink how and why patient data would need to leave their environment and design secure systems (which e-mail aint) to facilitate that transmittal. Course the reality is companies aren't really interested in protecting patient data, just in being compliant with the various regulatory agencies which govern them. So, following the cheapest route to compliance they encounter the reality that cheap aint easy. On 2/25/03 16:06, Christopher Hummert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok I knew I shouldn't have used that example, cause I knew somewhere we were going to get into a debate about it. In addition I should have said Hydrogen Fuel Cells which is what I was thinking of when I made the statement. As far as the pollution: Fuel cells efficiently convert hydrogen fuel and oxygen from the air into electricity. Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (HFCEVs) emit only water vapor from their exhaust pipes. Demonstrations of HFCEVs have been successful and this technology is expected to displace internal combustion engines in the 21st
Exchange 2K3 OWA Change Password
Has anyone played with this feature (using SSL) to change the password. I
have followed the 'Q' article for Exchange2000 to enable (updating the
metabase via admin scripts etc...) but I noticed in Exchange2000 (I use 5.5)
it still was using the dreaded HTR extension. So I looked at the code
quickly and found the 'options.js' was still trying to call a file with a
HTR extension which I know wouldn't work on a IIS 6 box. The code as
follows...
function openChangePassword()
{
var objLocation = window.location;
var szServer= objLocation.host;
var szClose = g_szUserBase + /?Cmd=close;
var szURL = https://; + szServer +
/iisadmpwd/aexp2b.htr?
So I change the extension to ASP as there is a file named aexp2b.asp in the
'iisadmpwd' folder. I also confirmed anonymous access was enabled and still
nothing, it calls up a page that it says isn't there. Anyone got this
working?
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.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: duplicate emails
For example the email that you sent to me I recieved in my mailbox and a copy is sent to my yahoo account. This copy is duplicated. If this email was internal it would not be duplicated. I didn't check message id and not sure how to. I believe I would need message tracking enabled for that. Im familiar with 5.5 but I need to read up on the exchange 2000. -Original Message- From: Michelle Harmon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: duplicate emails I'm not sure that I understand your question. The custom recipients are people outside your organization that are represented in your GAL, correct? If so, then I'm not sure why you're concerned about mail that people outside your company are getting from other people outside your company. Also, have you checked to see if the duplicate messages have the same message ID? -Original Message- From: Michael Ahlfont [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: duplicate emails Hello all We have recently upgraded from exchange 5.5 to 2000. Friday we placed the OWA server is outside the firewall and switched it to do the routing of smtp email. Since we made the switch Friday night, the custom recipients receive duplicate emails only from emails generated outside the company. Emails generated from within the company are not duplicated. Any ideas on what is happening? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 server level encryption
I say we just have everyone type in gibberish from the beginning. It would work just as well, and be a lot cheaper. Besides, with all the spam filters and RBLs, the message isn't going to arrive anyway. Excuse me, I think I just had an attack of cynicism. -Peter -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:36 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Yup. Setting up encrypted mail, whatever that is, isn't going to fix the problem. If all e-mail must be encrypted, you pretty much ought to disconnect it from the Internet, because the vast majority of your correspondents will not be able to communicate with you. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Right. It goes back to Ed's quote about there seldom being technical solutions to behavioral problems. Part of these regulations requires strongly retraining all employees that they need to keep patient information out of emails. Things that require patient information, like billing information, shouldn't traverse email in the first place, rather it should be handled at the billing system level. At that point, all an email has to contain is an invoice number or a payment number and you're not passing any confidential information. HIPAA isn't something for which completely technical solutions exist. This is one of those places. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Well, that isn't exactly like that. But it seems as though there also isn't an easy wau to determine what to encrypt on the fly.. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption What data are you actually trying to encrypt, and where is it coming from? For instance, some of our products offer HIPAA compliance for electronic transactions, using a variety of transports, including SMTP, IIRC. I'd push back at the auditors to make sure that they're clearly defining what needs to be encrypted and what can be sent clear text. It sounds like they're pushing for 100% encryption of all email, which is well beyond my understanding of the expectation under the law. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Argh... Which is pretty much what Eric was saying I think also. I kinda figured this was going to be a tremendous pain in the ass. So let me throw a side idea at ya. How about creating a different virtual server to handle certain domains and have that relay through a gateway to encrypt that traffic. Then we would know who was getting the mail and the would be able to decrypt it. -Original Message- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption I'll assume you are talking about SMIME encryption here. What you want to do is not possible in the general sense. You need the recipient's public key in order to encrypt their mail. You would have to have a predefined list of all possible recipients and their public keys. Even if you had this list, I know of no products that implement this (but then again, I've never looked) You could probably rig something up using PGP on a unix box as an outbound gateway. But then all your recipients would need PGP to read the mail. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange server level encryption Ok, my eyes are going crossed. I have been trying to figure out a decent way to encrypt all outbound email from our company. This is for compliance with HIPAA. Does anyone happen to have any ideas? I have googled and haven't found a product that looks right. I have searched for exchange 2000
Re: Exchange server level encryption-OT
I don't doubt that one of your company's biggest priorities now is regulatory compliance as it relates to the protection of patient information. If those involved in the health care industry had really been concerned about protecting this data for the sake of the patients themselves, wouldn't the safeguards already be in place? On 2/26/03 10:27, Christopher Hummert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I work for a Insurance company. One of our biggest priorities is the protection of patient information. Don't generalize a whole industry. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption-OT Take exception all you like, for the vast majority of companies involved in health care, patient information is not a priority. Nice that it is in your organization, but yours is the exception rather than the rule I assure you. Think insurance companies care about patient confidentiality? Hell, they don't even care about patients. Security second to the pentagon? Perhaps taking a page from their book and setting up public and private networks initially would have solved these types of issues. If protecting patient data had been a priority from the get go, I'd expect this would already be in place. Instead, maintaining that confidentiality was an idea given lip service to while measures were put in place which were known to trade off security for expediency. As noble as your organization's intentions are, a thimble full of wine in a barrel of sewer water, still gets you a barrel of sewer water. That's why extremely restrictive regulations were enacted. On 2/26/03 7:19, Chinnery, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris, I take exception to your comments in your second paragraph that the reality is that companies don't really care about protecting patient data. I work in a hospital and have met many people from other hospitals through seminars, meetings, etc. To say that we don't care is patently false. Patient confidentiality is a priority, second only to patient care. Our hospital has zero tolerance for PHI disclosure. A nurse blabs to someone about a patient and boom! she's fired. I know, I've seen it happen. The trouble with HIPAA is that they seem to want hospitals and healthcare organizations to be almost as secure as the Pentagon. Our administration hired a big name outfit to give their recomendations. I had to read through 23 documents from them. And some of them, the suggestions, were insane. One suggested (although it said it was optional) searching all purses and bags that patients or visitors to the hospital. I guess they're afraid someone would sneak in a floppy to be used to copy patient data. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption-OT Not an expert on the science behind this essay http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224=easterbrook022403 http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224=easterbrook022403 http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224s=easterbrook022403 , but the idea of needing to use nuclear power plants to product the levels of hydrogen needed for 'clean fuel cells' seems to make the water is the only byproduct argument a bit disingenuous. Course as I said, I'm not an expert on the subject so I'm certainly open to knowing where the levels of hydrogen needed for such a thing would come from. Perhaps instead of replacing HIPPA, those companies subject to its regulations need to rethink how and why patient data would need to leave their environment and design secure systems (which e-mail aint) to facilitate that transmittal. Course the reality is companies aren't really interested in protecting patient data, just in being compliant with the various regulatory agencies which govern them. So, following the cheapest route to compliance they encounter the reality that cheap aint easy. On 2/25/03 16:06, Christopher Hummert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok I knew I shouldn't have used that example, cause I knew somewhere we were going to get into a debate about it. In addition I should have said Hydrogen Fuel Cells which is what I was thinking of when I made the statement. As far as the pollution: Fuel cells efficiently convert hydrogen fuel and oxygen from the air into electricity. Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (HFCEVs) emit only water vapor from their exhaust pipes. Demonstrations of HFCEVs have been successful and this technology is expected to displace internal combustion engines in the 21st Century. Which I got from pretty much the first thing I could google up here: http://www.hydrogencomponents.com/altfuel.html
Re: duplicate emails
Are these CRs alternate recipients for mailboxes? On 2/26/03 11:06, Michael Ahlfont [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For example the email that you sent to me I recieved in my mailbox and a copy is sent to my yahoo account. This copy is duplicated. If this email was internal it would not be duplicated. I didn't check message id and not sure how to. I believe I would need message tracking enabled for that. Im familiar with 5.5 but I need to read up on the exchange 2000. -Original Message- From: Michelle Harmon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: duplicate emails I'm not sure that I understand your question. The custom recipients are people outside your organization that are represented in your GAL, correct? If so, then I'm not sure why you're concerned about mail that people outside your company are getting from other people outside your company. Also, have you checked to see if the duplicate messages have the same message ID? -Original Message- From: Michael Ahlfont [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: duplicate emails Hello all We have recently upgraded from exchange 5.5 to 2000. Friday we placed the OWA server is outside the firewall and switched it to do the routing of smtp email. Since we made the switch Friday night, the custom recipients receive duplicate emails only from emails generated outside the company. Emails generated from within the company are not duplicated. Any ideas on what is happening? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: duplicate emails
Are you checking both Exchange server emails and POP3 mails? On Wednesday 26 February 2003 06:06 pm, you wrote: For example the email that you sent to me I recieved in my mailbox and a copy is sent to my yahoo account. This copy is duplicated. If this email was internal it would not be duplicated. I didn't check message id and not sure how to. I believe I would need message tracking enabled for that. Im familiar with 5.5 but I need to read up on the exchange 2000. -Original Message- From: Michelle Harmon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: duplicate emails I'm not sure that I understand your question. The custom recipients are people outside your organization that are represented in your GAL, correct? If so, then I'm not sure why you're concerned about mail that people outside your company are getting from other people outside your company. Also, have you checked to see if the duplicate messages have the same message ID? -Original Message- From: Michael Ahlfont [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: duplicate emails Hello all We have recently upgraded from exchange 5.5 to 2000. Friday we placed the OWA server is outside the firewall and switched it to do the routing of smtp email. Since we made the switch Friday night, the custom recipients receive duplicate emails only from emails generated outside the company. Emails generated from within the company are not duplicated. Any ideas on what is happening? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 server level encryption-OT
This is just my opinion on why it happened. From what I understand a few bad apples had some mishaps with patient information, the media gets a hold of this, blows it out of proportion, a few rep and senators decided to do something about this, because now it's been blown into this massive problem that threatens to destroy our society as we know it. Thus HIPPA was born. The safeguards were already in place, the industry was doing a good job creating solutions to protect patient data, but a few people screwed it up. Even with HIPPA in place those same people will be out there to screw things up, they'll find one way or another, and thus something like HIPPA v2 will happen, with the cycle continuing on and on. With the insurance side of this, protection of patient information is extremely important. Since if you screw up once and someone out there finds out about, there are a ton of other agents out there that will be more then happy to take that account away from you. Besides technology the bigger problem is the social side of patient data protection. Look at Kevin Metnick(spelling?), he used peoples trust in other people, against them to get the information that he wanted. What's going to stop someone from doing this? That's the biggest problem that being faced today. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption-OT I don't doubt that one of your company's biggest priorities now is regulatory compliance as it relates to the protection of patient information. If those involved in the health care industry had really been concerned about protecting this data for the sake of the patients themselves, wouldn't the safeguards already be in place? On 2/26/03 10:27, Christopher Hummert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I work for a Insurance company. One of our biggest priorities is the protection of patient information. Don't generalize a whole industry. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption-OT Take exception all you like, for the vast majority of companies involved in health care, patient information is not a priority. Nice that it is in your organization, but yours is the exception rather than the rule I assure you. Think insurance companies care about patient confidentiality? Hell, they don't even care about patients. Security second to the pentagon? Perhaps taking a page from their book and setting up public and private networks initially would have solved these types of issues. If protecting patient data had been a priority from the get go, I'd expect this would already be in place. Instead, maintaining that confidentiality was an idea given lip service to while measures were put in place which were known to trade off security for expediency. As noble as your organization's intentions are, a thimble full of wine in a barrel of sewer water, still gets you a barrel of sewer water. That's why extremely restrictive regulations were enacted. On 2/26/03 7:19, Chinnery, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris, I take exception to your comments in your second paragraph that the reality is that companies don't really care about protecting patient data. I work in a hospital and have met many people from other hospitals through seminars, meetings, etc. To say that we don't care is patently false. Patient confidentiality is a priority, second only to patient care. Our hospital has zero tolerance for PHI disclosure. A nurse blabs to someone about a patient and boom! she's fired. I know, I've seen it happen. The trouble with HIPAA is that they seem to want hospitals and healthcare organizations to be almost as secure as the Pentagon. Our administration hired a big name outfit to give their recomendations. I had to read through 23 documents from them. And some of them, the suggestions, were insane. One suggested (although it said it was optional) searching all purses and bags that patients or visitors to the hospital. I guess they're afraid someone would sneak in a floppy to be used to copy patient data. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption-OT Not an expert on the science behind this essay http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224=easterbrook022403 http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224=easterbrook022403 http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224s=easterbrook022403 , but the idea of needing to use nuclear power plants to product the levels of hydrogen needed for 'clean fuel cells' seems to make the water
RE: Exchange server level encryption-OT
And I used to work for the third largest insurance adjusting company in the country, and information security was NEVER a priority for our customers. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption-OT I work for a Insurance company. One of our biggest priorities is the protection of patient information. Don't generalize a whole industry. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption-OT Take exception all you like, for the vast majority of companies involved in health care, patient information is not a priority. Nice that it is in your organization, but yours is the exception rather than the rule I assure you. Think insurance companies care about patient confidentiality? Hell, they don't even care about patients. Security second to the pentagon? Perhaps taking a page from their book and setting up public and private networks initially would have solved these types of issues. If protecting patient data had been a priority from the get go, I'd expect this would already be in place. Instead, maintaining that confidentiality was an idea given lip service to while measures were put in place which were known to trade off security for expediency. As noble as your organization's intentions are, a thimble full of wine in a barrel of sewer water, still gets you a barrel of sewer water. That's why extremely restrictive regulations were enacted. On 2/26/03 7:19, Chinnery, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris, I take exception to your comments in your second paragraph that the reality is that companies don't really care about protecting patient data. I work in a hospital and have met many people from other hospitals through seminars, meetings, etc. To say that we don't care is patently false. Patient confidentiality is a priority, second only to patient care. Our hospital has zero tolerance for PHI disclosure. A nurse blabs to someone about a patient and boom! she's fired. I know, I've seen it happen. The trouble with HIPAA is that they seem to want hospitals and healthcare organizations to be almost as secure as the Pentagon. Our administration hired a big name outfit to give their recomendations. I had to read through 23 documents from them. And some of them, the suggestions, were insane. One suggested (although it said it was optional) searching all purses and bags that patients or visitors to the hospital. I guess they're afraid someone would sneak in a floppy to be used to copy patient data. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption-OT Not an expert on the science behind this essay http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224=easterbrook022403 http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224s=easterbrook022403 , but the idea of needing to use nuclear power plants to product the levels of hydrogen needed for 'clean fuel cells' seems to make the water is the only byproduct argument a bit disingenuous. Course as I said, I'm not an expert on the subject so I'm certainly open to knowing where the levels of hydrogen needed for such a thing would come from. Perhaps instead of replacing HIPPA, those companies subject to its regulations need to rethink how and why patient data would need to leave their environment and design secure systems (which e-mail aint) to facilitate that transmittal. Course the reality is companies aren't really interested in protecting patient data, just in being compliant with the various regulatory agencies which govern them. So, following the cheapest route to compliance they encounter the reality that cheap aint easy. On 2/25/03 16:06, Christopher Hummert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok I knew I shouldn't have used that example, cause I knew somewhere we were going to get into a debate about it. In addition I should have said Hydrogen Fuel Cells which is what I was thinking of when I made the statement. As far as the pollution: Fuel cells efficiently convert hydrogen fuel and oxygen from the air into electricity. Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (HFCEVs) emit only water vapor from their exhaust pipes. Demonstrations of HFCEVs have been successful and this technology is expected to displace internal combustion engines in the 21st Century. Which I
RE: Exchange server level encryption-OT
We've offered encrypted e-mail to all of our clients; thus far very few, if any, have agreed to do it. They think it's too much of a hassle. sigh -Ben- Ben M. Schorr Director of Information Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions And I used to work for the third largest insurance adjusting company in the country, and information security was NEVER a priority for our customers. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption-OT I work for a Insurance company. One of our biggest priorities is the protection of patient information. Don't generalize a whole industry. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption-OT Take exception all you like, for the vast majority of companies involved in health care, patient information is not a priority. Nice that it is in your organization, but yours is the exception rather than the rule I assure you. Think insurance companies care about patient confidentiality? Hell, they don't even care about patients. Security second to the pentagon? Perhaps taking a page from their book and setting up public and private networks initially would have solved these types of issues. If protecting patient data had been a priority from the get go, I'd expect this would already be in place. Instead, maintaining that confidentiality was an idea given lip service to while measures were put in place which were known to trade off security for expediency. As noble as your organization's intentions are, a thimble full of wine in a barrel of sewer water, still gets you a barrel of sewer water. That's why extremely restrictive regulations were enacted. On 2/26/03 7:19, Chinnery, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris, I take exception to your comments in your second paragraph that the reality is that companies don't really care about protecting patient data. I work in a hospital and have met many people from other hospitals through seminars, meetings, etc. To say that we don't care is patently false. Patient confidentiality is a priority, second only to patient care. Our hospital has zero tolerance for PHI disclosure. A nurse blabs to someone about a patient and boom! she's fired. I know, I've seen it happen. The trouble with HIPAA is that they seem to want hospitals and healthcare organizations to be almost as secure as the Pentagon. Our administration hired a big name outfit to give their recomendations. I had to read through 23 documents from them. And some of them, the suggestions, were insane. One suggested (although it said it was optional) searching all purses and bags that patients or visitors to the hospital. I guess they're afraid someone would sneak in a floppy to be used to copy patient data. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption-OT Not an expert on the science behind this essay http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224=easterbrook022403 http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224s=easterbrook022403 , but the idea of needing to use nuclear power plants to product the levels of hydrogen needed for 'clean fuel cells' seems to make the water is the only byproduct argument a bit disingenuous. Course as I said, I'm not an expert on the subject so I'm certainly open to knowing where the levels of hydrogen needed for such a thing would come from. Perhaps instead of replacing HIPPA, those companies subject to its regulations need to rethink how and why patient data would need to leave their environment and design secure systems (which e-mail aint) to facilitate that transmittal. Course the reality is companies aren't really interested in protecting patient data, just in being compliant with the various regulatory agencies which govern them. So, following the cheapest route to compliance they encounter the reality that cheap aint easy. On 2/25/03 16:06, Christopher Hummert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok I knew I shouldn't have used that example, cause I knew somewhere we were going to get into a debate about it. In addition I should have said Hydrogen Fuel Cells which is what I was thinking of when I
Re: 5.5/2K co-existance
Could use some help, need a refresher! When you add a E2K server into a existing 5.5 site. Are the connection for mail delivery automatically setup? I though they were. Do you have to edit the MTA or IMC connections. IMC is using DNS for delivery. There is only one MX record pointing to the 5.5 server. Do I need another directed to the E2K system. The setup is a mailfilter is passing mail from the Internet to a the 5.5 system, then I thought to the E2k box. How do I check this? The issue is I have moved one test mail box to the E2K system, and it intermintaly looses mail inbound and outbound, even when sening to users on the 5.5 system. I did check to see if the HOME server islisted correctly, it is. Thanks, - John Q _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: 5.5/2K co-existance
You need a class. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=182 249itm=1 http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0782127 975itm=1 Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Geek Q Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: 5.5/2K co-existance Could use some help, need a refresher! When you add a E2K server into a existing 5.5 site. Are the connection for mail delivery automatically setup? I though they were. Do you have to edit the MTA or IMC connections. IMC is using DNS for delivery. There is only one MX record pointing to the 5.5 server. Do I need another directed to the E2K system. The setup is a mailfilter is passing mail from the Internet to a the 5.5 system, then I thought to the E2k box. How do I check this? The issue is I have moved one test mail box to the E2K system, and it intermintaly looses mail inbound and outbound, even when sening to users on the 5.5 system. I did check to see if the HOME server islisted correctly, it is. Thanks, - John Q _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 server level encryption
More like realism. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Durkee, Peter Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:08 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption I say we just have everyone type in gibberish from the beginning. It would work just as well, and be a lot cheaper. Besides, with all the spam filters and RBLs, the message isn't going to arrive anyway. Excuse me, I think I just had an attack of cynicism. -Peter -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:36 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Yup. Setting up encrypted mail, whatever that is, isn't going to fix the problem. If all e-mail must be encrypted, you pretty much ought to disconnect it from the Internet, because the vast majority of your correspondents will not be able to communicate with you. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Right. It goes back to Ed's quote about there seldom being technical solutions to behavioral problems. Part of these regulations requires strongly retraining all employees that they need to keep patient information out of emails. Things that require patient information, like billing information, shouldn't traverse email in the first place, rather it should be handled at the billing system level. At that point, all an email has to contain is an invoice number or a payment number and you're not passing any confidential information. HIPAA isn't something for which completely technical solutions exist. This is one of those places. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Well, that isn't exactly like that. But it seems as though there also isn't an easy wau to determine what to encrypt on the fly.. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption What data are you actually trying to encrypt, and where is it coming from? For instance, some of our products offer HIPAA compliance for electronic transactions, using a variety of transports, including SMTP, IIRC. I'd push back at the auditors to make sure that they're clearly defining what needs to be encrypted and what can be sent clear text. It sounds like they're pushing for 100% encryption of all email, which is well beyond my understanding of the expectation under the law. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption Argh... Which is pretty much what Eric was saying I think also. I kinda figured this was going to be a tremendous pain in the ass. So let me throw a side idea at ya. How about creating a different virtual server to handle certain domains and have that relay through a gateway to encrypt that traffic. Then we would know who was getting the mail and the would be able to decrypt it. -Original Message- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption I'll assume you are talking about SMIME encryption here. What you want to do is not possible in the general sense. You need the recipient's public key in order to encrypt their mail. You would have to have a predefined list of all possible recipients and their public keys. Even if you had this list, I know of no products that implement this (but then again, I've never looked) You could probably rig something up using PGP on a unix box as an outbound gateway. But then all your recipients would need PGP to read the mail. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange server level
RE: Exchange server level encryption-OT
You're. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Hummert Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption-OT All your trying to do is to start another flame war. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption-OT Very hard to accept, considering the source. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Hummert Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption-OT I work for a Insurance company. One of our biggest priorities is the protection of patient information. Don't generalize a whole industry. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption-OT Take exception all you like, for the vast majority of companies involved in health care, patient information is not a priority. Nice that it is in your organization, but yours is the exception rather than the rule I assure you. Think insurance companies care about patient confidentiality? Hell, they don't even care about patients. Security second to the pentagon? Perhaps taking a page from their book and setting up public and private networks initially would have solved these types of issues. If protecting patient data had been a priority from the get go, I'd expect this would already be in place. Instead, maintaining that confidentiality was an idea given lip service to while measures were put in place which were known to trade off security for expediency. As noble as your organization's intentions are, a thimble full of wine in a barrel of sewer water, still gets you a barrel of sewer water. That's why extremely restrictive regulations were enacted. On 2/26/03 7:19, Chinnery, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris, I take exception to your comments in your second paragraph that the reality is that companies don't really care about protecting patient data. I work in a hospital and have met many people from other hospitals through seminars, meetings, etc. To say that we don't care is patently false. Patient confidentiality is a priority, second only to patient care. Our hospital has zero tolerance for PHI disclosure. A nurse blabs to someone about a patient and boom! she's fired. I know, I've seen it happen. The trouble with HIPAA is that they seem to want hospitals and healthcare organizations to be almost as secure as the Pentagon. Our administration hired a big name outfit to give their recomendations. I had to read through 23 documents from them. And some of them, the suggestions, were insane. One suggested (although it said it was optional) searching all purses and bags that patients or visitors to the hospital. I guess they're afraid someone would sneak in a floppy to be used to copy patient data. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption-OT Not an expert on the science behind this essay http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224=easterbrook022403 http://tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030224s=easterbrook022403 , but the idea of needing to use nuclear power plants to product the levels of hydrogen needed for 'clean fuel cells' seems to make the water is the only byproduct argument a bit disingenuous. Course as I said, I'm not an expert on the subject so I'm certainly open to knowing where the levels of hydrogen needed for such a thing would come from. Perhaps instead of replacing HIPPA, those companies subject to its regulations need to rethink how and why patient data would need to leave their environment and design secure systems (which e-mail aint) to facilitate that transmittal. Course the reality is companies aren't really interested in protecting patient data, just in being compliant with the various regulatory agencies which govern them. So, following the cheapest route to compliance they encounter the reality that cheap aint easy. On 2/25/03 16:06, Christopher Hummert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok I knew I shouldn't have used that example, cause I knew somewhere we were going to get into a debate about it. In addition I should have said Hydrogen Fuel Cells which is what I was thinking of when I made the
RE: 5.5/2K co-existance
When you install Exchange2000 joining an Exchange5.5 site, there is a lot of prep work that would eliminate most of your questions. You don't even mention 'Active Directory Connector'. There is a lot more to know before effectively answering your question as asked. I recommend starting here: http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/techinfo/deployment/2000/E2Kupgradeguide.a sp William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Geek Q Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Could use some help, need a refresher! When you add a E2K server into a existing 5.5 site. Are the connection for mail delivery automatically setup? I though they were. Do you have to edit the MTA or IMC connections. IMC is using DNS for delivery. There is only one MX record pointing to the 5.5 server. Do I need another directed to the E2K system. The setup is a mailfilter is passing mail from the Internet to a the 5.5 system, then I thought to the E2k box. How do I check this? The issue is I have moved one test mail box to the E2K system, and it intermintaly looses mail inbound and outbound, even when sening to users on the 5.5 system. I did check to see if the HOME server islisted correctly, it is. Thanks, - John Q _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 server level encryption-OT
On 2/26/03 11:30, Christopher Hummert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is just my opinion on why it happened. From what I understand a few bad apples had some mishaps with patient information, the media gets a hold of this, blows it out of proportion, Blows what out of proportion? Insufficient safeguards on patient data? What would be a significant reaction to the unauthorized sharing of thousands of medical records? Is oops, we're terribly sorry a sufficient level of accountability for such actions? Shouldn't others in the medical industry have risen up saying, we've spent millions of dollars putting safeguards in place to protect patient privacy and this rogue entity needs to be punished severely? But they didn't.. I wonder why. Perhaps because none of them were really doing anything to protect this data. a few rep and senators decided to do something about this, because now it's been blown into this massive problem that threatens to destroy our society as we know it. It's this level of sarcasm and complete lack of understanding of why the public is concerned about their information being shared inappropriately which lead to regulations being put in place. Thus HIPPA was born. It's HIPAA. The safeguards were already in place, the industry was doing a good job creating solutions to protect patient data, but a few people screwed it up. Really? If the safeguards were in place then why are there companies making tons of cash off of implementing solutions to ensure HIPAA compliance? HIPAA compliance is one of the largest sources of IT spending anywhere at the moment. I fail to see how that can be if the safeguards are already in place. Even with HIPPA in place those same people will be out there to screw things up, they'll find one way or another, and thus something like HIPPA v2 will happen, with the cycle continuing on and on. And this is a bad thing why? With the insurance side of this, protection of patient information is extremely important. Since if you screw up once and someone out there finds out about, there are a ton of other agents out there that will be more then happy to take that account away from you. Well, first of all.. There's the all important if someone finds out. It's certainly possible that there are hundreds (nay thousands, nay tens of thousands) of incidents which have occurred which the public will never find out about. The reality is that disclosure of patient data among the largest insurers is unlikely to result in to large of a change in the status quo. Look at all the bad press Ford took for the Pinto in the 70's, yet they are still going strong. Why should we expect that a large insurer would suffer a dissimilar fate? Besides technology the bigger problem is the social side of patient data protection. Look at Kevin Metnick(spelling?), he used peoples trust in other people, against them to get the information that he wanted. What's going to stop someone from doing this? That's the biggest problem that being faced today. Social engineering is a problem. That it is the biggest problem is a debatable point. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: 5.5/2K co-existance
That is funny you listed that doc, those were the steps I followed. The ADC is up and running, no errors. The issue is I can get delivery receipts from the systems, when I send them mail from the ouside. But when that user replies to the message it goes to never-never land. And internal delivery, with-in the site, is fine. But when ALL users send mail to outside domains it is not listed in the queue and is never delivered. I can ping ouside and do MX lookup properly, but the message are no where to be found. That is why I think I have a real issue. From: William Lefkovics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 5.5/2K co-existance Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:49:45 -0800 When you install Exchange2000 joining an Exchange5.5 site, there is a lot of prep work that would eliminate most of your questions. You don't even mention 'Active Directory Connector'. There is a lot more to know before effectively answering your question as asked. I recommend starting here: http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/techinfo/deployment/2000/E2Kupgradeguide.a sp William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Geek Q Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Could use some help, need a refresher! When you add a E2K server into a existing 5.5 site. Are the connection for mail delivery automatically setup? I though they were. Do you have to edit the MTA or IMC connections. IMC is using DNS for delivery. There is only one MX record pointing to the 5.5 server. Do I need another directed to the E2K system. The setup is a mailfilter is passing mail from the Internet to a the 5.5 system, then I thought to the E2k box. How do I check this? The issue is I have moved one test mail box to the E2K system, and it intermintaly looses mail inbound and outbound, even when sening to users on the 5.5 system. I did check to see if the HOME server islisted correctly, it is. Thanks, - John Q _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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] _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disabling Departed Users
In Exchange 5.5, when a user departed we'd disable their accounts and continue collecting mail for them so their supervisors could look at anything business related. In Exchange 2000, if we disable the account they can no longer receive mail. The event logs say: Disabled user /O=[blah-o]/OU=[blah-ou]/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=[userid] does not have a master account SID. Please use Active Directory MMC to set an active account as this user's master account. So what's the appropriate procedure for disabling accounts yet allowing the user to continue to receive mail in a 2k domain? Or do I have something screwed up? -Yanek. - This electronic message transmission contains information that may be confidential or privileged. The information contained herein is intended solely for the recipient and use by any other party is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient (or otherwise authorized to receive this message by the intended recipient), any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of the information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message transmission in error, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. Cigital, Inc. accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage resulting directly or indirectly from the use of this email or its contents. Thank You. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: 5.5/2K co-existance
Well now we're getting somewhere. :o) Start with message tracking. Where is 'never-never land' exactly? Also, increasing logging might produce some ugly errors in the application event log (that might make you curse at the ADC). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Geek Q Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions That is funny you listed that doc, those were the steps I followed. The ADC is up and running, no errors. The issue is I can get delivery receipts from the systems, when I send them mail from the ouside. But when that user replies to the message it goes to never-never land. And internal delivery, with-in the site, is fine. But when ALL users send mail to outside domains it is not listed in the queue and is never delivered. I can ping ouside and do MX lookup properly, but the message are no where to be found. That is why I think I have a real issue. From: William Lefkovics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 5.5/2K co-existance Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:49:45 -0800 When you install Exchange2000 joining an Exchange5.5 site, there is a lot of prep work that would eliminate most of your questions. You don't even mention 'Active Directory Connector'. There is a lot more to know before effectively answering your question as asked. I recommend starting here: http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/techinfo/deployment/2000/E2Kupgradegu ide.a sp William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Geek Q Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Could use some help, need a refresher! When you add a E2K server into a existing 5.5 site. Are the connection for mail delivery automatically setup? I though they were. Do you have to edit the MTA or IMC connections. IMC is using DNS for delivery. There is only one MX record pointing to the 5.5 server. Do I need another directed to the E2K system. The setup is a mailfilter is passing mail from the Internet to a the 5.5 system, then I thought to the E2k box. How do I check this? The issue is I have moved one test mail box to the E2K system, and it intermintaly looses mail inbound and outbound, even when sening to users on the 5.5 system. I did check to see if the HOME server islisted correctly, it is. Thanks, - John Q _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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] _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: 5.5/2K co-existance
Are the servers in the same or different routing groups? Do you want SMTP mail routed out through the 5.5 server? Have you done any configuration to the Exchange 2000 SMTP virtual server(s) and/or SMTP Connector? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Geek Q Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: 5.5/2K co-existance That is funny you listed that doc, those were the steps I followed. The ADC is up and running, no errors. The issue is I can get delivery receipts from the systems, when I send them mail from the ouside. But when that user replies to the message it goes to never-never land. And internal delivery, with-in the site, is fine. But when ALL users send mail to outside domains it is not listed in the queue and is never delivered. I can ping ouside and do MX lookup properly, but the message are no where to be found. That is why I think I have a real issue. From: William Lefkovics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 5.5/2K co-existance Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:49:45 -0800 When you install Exchange2000 joining an Exchange5.5 site, there is a lot of prep work that would eliminate most of your questions. You don't even mention 'Active Directory Connector'. There is a lot more to know before effectively answering your question as asked. I recommend starting here: http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/techinfo/deployment/2000/E2Kupgradegu ide.a sp William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Geek Q Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Could use some help, need a refresher! When you add a E2K server into a existing 5.5 site. Are the connection for mail delivery automatically setup? I though they were. Do you have to edit the MTA or IMC connections. IMC is using DNS for delivery. There is only one MX record pointing to the 5.5 server. Do I need another directed to the E2K system. The setup is a mailfilter is passing mail from the Internet to a the 5.5 system, then I thought to the E2k box. How do I check this? The issue is I have moved one test mail box to the E2K system, and it intermintaly looses mail inbound and outbound, even when sening to users on the 5.5 system. I did check to see if the HOME server islisted correctly, it is. Thanks, - John Q _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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] _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
Offline Address book not updating
We are currently having an issue with O98 clients not getting their offline address books updated. The data is old. We have recreated profiles and deleted application data and still nothing. We are running EX2000 SP3. 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: Disabling Departed Users
Go to the Exchange advanced tab--mailbox rights on the user object and add self as associated external account. Wait a bit and you'll be able to send mail to the mailbox. -Original Message- From: Yanek Korff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Disabling Departed Users In Exchange 5.5, when a user departed we'd disable their accounts and continue collecting mail for them so their supervisors could look at anything business related. In Exchange 2000, if we disable the account they can no longer receive mail. The event logs say: Disabled user /O=[blah-o]/OU=[blah-ou]/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=[userid] does not have a master account SID. Please use Active Directory MMC to set an active account as this user's master account. So what's the appropriate procedure for disabling accounts yet allowing the user to continue to receive mail in a 2k domain? Or do I have something screwed up? -Yanek. - This electronic message transmission contains information that may be confidential or privileged. The information contained herein is intended solely for the recipient and use by any other party is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient (or otherwise authorized to receive this message by the intended recipient), any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of the information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message transmission in error, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. Cigital, Inc. accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage resulting directly or indirectly from the use of this email or its contents. Thank You. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
HIPPA and mail relaying
Since HIPPA is the thread of the day. We are running 5.5 sp3 and I have the Do not reroute incoming SMTP mail tab selected in the Routing tab of the IMS selected. The magic tool that the consultant used, and I don't know what it is, and the CFI LANguard scanner I just used is reporting that the server is an open mail relay. Now the consultant is telling us that he doesn't usually get a false hit on this. So for you exchange guru's out there, have any of you ran into this before, or am I just being a bonehead and missing something. Thanks Jeff _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: HIPPA and mail relaying
Sorry, bad day we are using sp4 on the server. -Original Message- From: Waters, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 3:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: HIPPA and mail relaying Since HIPPA is the thread of the day. We are running 5.5 sp3 and I have the Do not reroute incoming SMTP mail tab selected in the Routing tab of the IMS selected. The magic tool that the consultant used, and I don't know what it is, and the CFI LANguard scanner I just used is reporting that the server is an open mail relay. Now the consultant is telling us that he doesn't usually get a false hit on this. So for you exchange guru's out there, have any of you ran into this before, or am I just being a bonehead and missing something. Thanks Jeff _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
CDO contact question
I am pulling contacts out of a database using CDO and putting them in a PF. When the code finishes the contact is there but the Business Address is not showing up in the preview. When I open the contact it is there. Then I close it and it is there. I use the update method (oAddr.Update , True) to make it reload the info, but it is not working? Any ideas? 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: Offline Address book not updating
Search the Knowledge Base for the exact phrase Offline Address Book for product Exchange 2000. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gonzalez, Alex Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Offline Address book not updating We are currently having an issue with O98 clients not getting their offline address books updated. The data is old. We have recreated profiles and deleted application data and still nothing. We are running EX2000 SP3. 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: HIPPA and mail relaying
Exactly what does the tool say? What is your domain? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Waters, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: HIPPA and mail relaying Since HIPPA is the thread of the day. We are running 5.5 sp3 and I have the Do not reroute incoming SMTP mail tab selected in the Routing tab of the IMS selected. The magic tool that the consultant used, and I don't know what it is, and the CFI LANguard scanner I just used is reporting that the server is an open mail relay. Now the consultant is telling us that he doesn't usually get a false hit on this. So for you exchange guru's out there, have any of you ran into this before, or am I just being a bonehead and missing something. Thanks Jeff _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: HIPPA and mail relaying
It's a great tool, it says the site is an open relay. What it does not say is how it came to the decision or what it's using as its proof. We are co.hanover.va.us and I have done a telnet to port 25 and gotten the 550 error. I'm so confused. Thanks Jeff -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: HIPPA and mail relaying Exactly what does the tool say? What is your domain? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Waters, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: HIPPA and mail relaying Since HIPPA is the thread of the day. We are running 5.5 sp3 and I have the Do not reroute incoming SMTP mail tab selected in the Routing tab of the IMS selected. The magic tool that the consultant used, and I don't know what it is, and the CFI LANguard scanner I just used is reporting that the server is an open mail relay. Now the consultant is telling us that he doesn't usually get a false hit on this. So for you exchange guru's out there, have any of you ran into this before, or am I just being a bonehead and missing something. Thanks Jeff _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: HIPPA and mail relaying
There are multiple methods of relaying. The tool should report how it is relaying. Abuse.net maintains a tool which will tell you if you are relaying. http://www.abuse.net/relay.html -Patrick R. Sweeney http://boston.craigslist.org/bos/res/8484283.html - Original Message - From: Waters, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 3:14 PM Subject: HIPPA and mail relaying Since HIPPA is the thread of the day. We are running 5.5 sp3 and I have the Do not reroute incoming SMTP mail tab selected in the Routing tab of the IMS selected. The magic tool that the consultant used, and I don't know what it is, and the CFI LANguard scanner I just used is reporting that the server is an open mail relay. Now the consultant is telling us that he doesn't usually get a false hit on this. So for you exchange guru's out there, have any of you ran into this before, or am I just being a bonehead and missing something. Thanks Jeff _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: HIPPA and mail relaying
I have a series of tests that I run manually to test the relaying. I got it from one of the testing websites a couple of years ago. I can't recall which one. It ran about 10 or 12 different tests I think. One of which would not produce the 550 relay prohibited thing when run against Exchange 5.5 but which also would not actually relay the message. If you like I can dig around for that list of tests. And/or the website. Ronni -Original Message- From: Waters, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: HIPPA and mail relaying It's a great tool, it says the site is an open relay. What it does not say is how it came to the decision or what it's using as its proof. We are co.hanover.va.us and I have done a telnet to port 25 and gotten the 550 error. I'm so confused. Thanks Jeff -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: HIPPA and mail relaying Exactly what does the tool say? What is your domain? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Waters, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: HIPPA and mail relaying Since HIPPA is the thread of the day. We are running 5.5 sp3 and I have the Do not reroute incoming SMTP mail tab selected in the Routing tab of the IMS selected. The magic tool that the consultant used, and I don't know what it is, and the CFI LANguard scanner I just used is reporting that the server is an open mail relay. Now the consultant is telling us that he doesn't usually get a false hit on this. So for you exchange guru's out there, have any of you ran into this before, or am I just being a bonehead and missing something. Thanks Jeff _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 2K3 OWA Change Password
As far as I can see the OWA 2k3 password change procedure is the same as OWA 2k.
That script that they say we should use only understands username, domain name, and
password. Not [EMAIL PROTECTED] and password. I like the latter.
So we took a portion of MS WebAdmin tool responsible for changing passwords and hooked
it up to OWA's options.js
-Original Message-
From: Finch Brett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:48 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2K3 OWA Change Password
Has anyone played with this feature (using SSL) to change the password. I
have followed the 'Q' article for Exchange2000 to enable (updating the
metabase via admin scripts etc...) but I noticed in Exchange2000 (I use 5.5)
it still was using the dreaded HTR extension. So I looked at the code
quickly and found the 'options.js' was still trying to call a file with a
HTR extension which I know wouldn't work on a IIS 6 box. The code as
follows...
function openChangePassword()
{
var objLocation = window.location;
var szServer= objLocation.host;
var szClose = g_szUserBase + /?Cmd=close;
var szURL = https://; + szServer +
/iisadmpwd/aexp2b.htr?
So I change the extension to ASP as there is a file named aexp2b.asp in the
'iisadmpwd' folder. I also confirmed anonymous access was enabled and still
nothing, it calls up a page that it says isn't there. Anyone got this
working?
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.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: HIPPA and mail relaying
You're relay secure. Some tools are too good. They test scenarios where Exchange will accept a message for delivery but not relay it. That is, not all such scenarios generate a 550 error, but Exchange doesn't relay them and that's what really matters. I think your tool is reporting a false positive. If the tool was great it would tell you what it was doing and what passed and what failed. If all you're getting is a pass/fail, then the tool leaves something to be desired. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Waters, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: HIPPA and mail relaying It's a great tool, it says the site is an open relay. What it does not say is how it came to the decision or what it's using as its proof. We are co.hanover.va.us and I have done a telnet to port 25 and gotten the 550 error. I'm so confused. Thanks Jeff -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: HIPPA and mail relaying Exactly what does the tool say? What is your domain? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Waters, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: HIPPA and mail relaying Since HIPPA is the thread of the day. We are running 5.5 sp3 and I have the Do not reroute incoming SMTP mail tab selected in the Routing tab of the IMS selected. The magic tool that the consultant used, and I don't know what it is, and the CFI LANguard scanner I just used is reporting that the server is an open mail relay. Now the consultant is telling us that he doesn't usually get a false hit on this. So for you exchange guru's out there, have any of you ran into this before, or am I just being a bonehead and missing something. Thanks Jeff _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
Outlook on Win XP SP1 can't connect to Exchange server
I have a customer who has been connecting to our Exchange servers just fine with MAPI Outlook, across the Internet. They have been receiving new PCs from Dell that are already preconfigured with Windows XP SP1. And for some reason users on those PCs cannot connect to Exchange anymore. I asked him to check the XP's built-in firewall. He says it is disabled. I did an RPC Ping test with him. From old PCs RPC Ping worked fine. But it failed on the new XP SP1 PCs. What else could there be wrong with XP SP1 that would kill RPCs? Thanks for 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: HIPPA and mail relaying
Exchange either relays or it doesn't; there aren't any settings that allow different types of relay. If you try a simple relay test and get the 550, then Exchange is properly configured. That's my experience, anyway, so fancy tools aren't terribly important. I just do this: Telnet servername 25 HELO name.com MAIL FROM:[EMAIL PROTECTED] RCPT TO:[EMAIL PROTECTED] QUIT It's easier than finding the website! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick R. Sweeney Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: HIPPA and mail relaying There are multiple methods of relaying. The tool should report how it is relaying. Abuse.net maintains a tool which will tell you if you are relaying. http://www.abuse.net/relay.html -Patrick R. Sweeney http://boston.craigslist.org/bos/res/8484283.html - Original Message - From: Waters, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 3:14 PM Subject: HIPPA and mail relaying Since HIPPA is the thread of the day. We are running 5.5 sp3 and I have the Do not reroute incoming SMTP mail tab selected in the Routing tab of the IMS selected. The magic tool that the consultant used, and I don't know what it is, and the CFI LANguard scanner I just used is reporting that the server is an open mail relay. Now the consultant is telling us that he doesn't usually get a false hit on this. So for you exchange guru's out there, have any of you ran into this before, or am I just being a bonehead and missing something. Thanks Jeff _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: HIPPA and mail relaying
http://www.abuse.net/relay.html -Original Message- From: Smith, Ronni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:06 PM To: Exchange Discussions I have a series of tests that I run manually to test the relaying. I got it from one of the testing websites a couple of years ago. I can't recall which one. It ran about 10 or 12 different tests I think. One of which would not produce the 550 relay prohibited thing when run against Exchange 5.5 but which also would not actually relay the message. If you like I can dig around for that list of tests. And/or the website. Ronni -Original Message- From: Waters, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: HIPPA and mail relaying It's a great tool, it says the site is an open relay. What it does not say is how it came to the decision or what it's using as its proof. We are co.hanover.va.us and I have done a telnet to port 25 and gotten the 550 error. I'm so confused. Thanks Jeff -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: HIPPA and mail relaying Exactly what does the tool say? What is your domain? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Waters, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: HIPPA and mail relaying Since HIPPA is the thread of the day. We are running 5.5 sp3 and I have the Do not reroute incoming SMTP mail tab selected in the Routing tab of the IMS selected. The magic tool that the consultant used, and I don't know what it is, and the CFI LANguard scanner I just used is reporting that the server is an open mail relay. Now the consultant is telling us that he doesn't usually get a false hit on this. So for you exchange guru's out there, have any of you ran into this before, or am I just being a bonehead and missing something. Thanks Jeff _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: HIPPA and mail relaying
Thanks Ed. I don't know what he was looking for, but am just letting all the powers that be know that we are not a relay site. Thanks again Jeff -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:18 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: HIPPA and mail relaying You're relay secure. Some tools are too good. They test scenarios where Exchange will accept a message for delivery but not relay it. That is, not all such scenarios generate a 550 error, but Exchange doesn't relay them and that's what really matters. I think your tool is reporting a false positive. If the tool was great it would tell you what it was doing and what passed and what failed. If all you're getting is a pass/fail, then the tool leaves something to be desired. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Waters, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: HIPPA and mail relaying It's a great tool, it says the site is an open relay. What it does not say is how it came to the decision or what it's using as its proof. We are co.hanover.va.us and I have done a telnet to port 25 and gotten the 550 error. I'm so confused. Thanks Jeff -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: HIPPA and mail relaying Exactly what does the tool say? What is your domain? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Waters, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: HIPPA and mail relaying Since HIPPA is the thread of the day. We are running 5.5 sp3 and I have the Do not reroute incoming SMTP mail tab selected in the Routing tab of the IMS selected. The magic tool that the consultant used, and I don't know what it is, and the CFI LANguard scanner I just used is reporting that the server is an open mail relay. Now the consultant is telling us that he doesn't usually get a false hit on this. So for you exchange guru's out there, have any of you ran into this before, or am I just being a bonehead and missing something. Thanks Jeff _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Outlook on Win XP SP1 can't connect to Exchange server
Do the old PC's perhaps have a host file or a static route setup on them to your server? -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions I have a customer who has been connecting to our Exchange servers just fine with MAPI Outlook, across the Internet. They have been receiving new PCs from Dell that are already preconfigured with Windows XP SP1. And for some reason users on those PCs cannot connect to Exchange anymore. I asked him to check the XP's built-in firewall. He says it is disabled. I did an RPC Ping test with him. From old PCs RPC Ping worked fine. But it failed on the new XP SP1 PCs. What else could there be wrong with XP SP1 that would kill RPCs? Thanks for 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: Outlook on Win XP SP1 can't connect to Exchange server
The Exchange server isn't by chance behind an ISA server is it? -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook on Win XP SP1 can't connect to Exchange server Do the old PC's perhaps have a host file or a static route setup on them to your server? -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions I have a customer who has been connecting to our Exchange servers just fine with MAPI Outlook, across the Internet. They have been receiving new PCs from Dell that are already preconfigured with Windows XP SP1. And for some reason users on those PCs cannot connect to Exchange anymore. I asked him to check the XP's built-in firewall. He says it is disabled. I did an RPC Ping test with him. From old PCs RPC Ping worked fine. But it failed on the new XP SP1 PCs. What else could there be wrong with XP SP1 that would kill RPCs? Thanks for 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: Outlook on Win XP SP1 can't connect to Exchange server
I am running XP SP1 and having no problems what so ever. Can you resolve the exchange server from the command prompt? A side note, 1st thing I always do to any new system, dump the OEM configuration and put our configs on the systems. I have found this to solve more than one or two problems along the way. Jeff -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Outlook on Win XP SP1 can't connect to Exchange server I have a customer who has been connecting to our Exchange servers just fine with MAPI Outlook, across the Internet. They have been receiving new PCs from Dell that are already preconfigured with Windows XP SP1. And for some reason users on those PCs cannot connect to Exchange anymore. I asked him to check the XP's built-in firewall. He says it is disabled. I did an RPC Ping test with him. From old PCs RPC Ping worked fine. But it failed on the new XP SP1 PCs. What else could there be wrong with XP SP1 that would kill RPCs? Thanks for 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: Outlook 2000 and .PST problem
Check the properties on the file - make sure it isn't set as read only -Original Message- From: Cooke, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 11:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook 2000 and .PST problem I actually ran scanpst on it and nothing really seems to be happening. The file isn't big at all maybe 200 MB max. But the strange thing is that when running scanpst util on it it's flies through and says everything completed successfully. I'm going to run it a few more times and see if there's any change but from the looks of things everything seems to be in order. -Original Message- From: Santhosh, H. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Cooke, Brian Subject: RE: Outlook 2000 and .PST problem Try scanpst.exe utility and run on the pst file also see if the pst is beyond 2gb if it is u need one more utility if u are coming the pst from cdrom remove the read only attribute -Original Message- From: Cooke, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Outlook 2000 and .PST problem All, I am having a problem with a user's PST file here in the office. He got a new PC and we were transferring over data however when I went to transfer his PST file the file size remains the same but there is no folder list and I can't seem to find any items in the view. Everything with the transfer runs smoothly and there seems to be no problem until we try to access the data. Does any one have any thoughts as to what the problem might be. We are running Exchange 5.5 on Win2K server. The client is Outlook 2000 on XP. Thanks in advance for all your help. Regards, Brian Cooke _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 and any attachments are intended for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not forward, copy, print, use or disclose this communication to others; also please notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. The Timken Company ** _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 email and its contents are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose or use the information within this email or its attachments. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately. Thank you. === _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Outlook on Win XP SP1 can't connect to Exchange server
nope -Original Message- From: Friese, Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook on Win XP SP1 can't connect to Exchange server The Exchange server isn't by chance behind an ISA server is it? -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook on Win XP SP1 can't connect to Exchange server Do the old PC's perhaps have a host file or a static route setup on them to your server? -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions I have a customer who has been connecting to our Exchange servers just fine with MAPI Outlook, across the Internet. They have been receiving new PCs from Dell that are already preconfigured with Windows XP SP1. And for some reason users on those PCs cannot connect to Exchange anymore. I asked him to check the XP's built-in firewall. He says it is disabled. I did an RPC Ping test with him. From old PCs RPC Ping worked fine. But it failed on the new XP SP1 PCs. What else could there be wrong with XP SP1 that would kill RPCs? Thanks for 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: 5.5/2K co-existance
I do want mail router throgh 5.5 and no changes were made to the STMP connector - Original Message - From: Ed Crowley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:38 PM Subject: RE: 5.5/2K co-existance Are the servers in the same or different routing groups? Do you want SMTP mail routed out through the 5.5 server? Have you done any configuration to the Exchange 2000 SMTP virtual server(s) and/or SMTP Connector? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Geek Q Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: 5.5/2K co-existance That is funny you listed that doc, those were the steps I followed. The ADC is up and running, no errors. The issue is I can get delivery receipts from the systems, when I send them mail from the ouside. But when that user replies to the message it goes to never-never land. And internal delivery, with-in the site, is fine. But when ALL users send mail to outside domains it is not listed in the queue and is never delivered. I can ping ouside and do MX lookup properly, but the message are no where to be found. That is why I think I have a real issue. From: William Lefkovics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 5.5/2K co-existance Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:49:45 -0800 When you install Exchange2000 joining an Exchange5.5 site, there is a lot of prep work that would eliminate most of your questions. You don't even mention 'Active Directory Connector'. There is a lot more to know before effectively answering your question as asked. I recommend starting here: http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/techinfo/deployment/2000/E2Kupgradegu ide.a sp William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Geek Q Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Could use some help, need a refresher! When you add a E2K server into a existing 5.5 site. Are the connection for mail delivery automatically setup? I though they were. Do you have to edit the MTA or IMC connections. IMC is using DNS for delivery. There is only one MX record pointing to the 5.5 server. Do I need another directed to the E2K system. The setup is a mailfilter is passing mail from the Internet to a the 5.5 system, then I thought to the E2k box. How do I check this? The issue is I have moved one test mail box to the E2K system, and it intermintaly looses mail inbound and outbound, even when sening to users on the 5.5 system. I did check to see if the HOME server islisted correctly, it is. Thanks, - John Q _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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] _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Outlook on Win XP SP1 can't connect to Exchange server
HOSTS file. The new ones have the HOSTS file too with the correct settings. He can do a regular ping, by server name, and it replies. Something is killing the RPCs though. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook on Win XP SP1 can't connect to Exchange server Do the old PC's perhaps have a host file or a static route setup on them to your server? -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions I have a customer who has been connecting to our Exchange servers just fine with MAPI Outlook, across the Internet. They have been receiving new PCs from Dell that are already preconfigured with Windows XP SP1. And for some reason users on those PCs cannot connect to Exchange anymore. I asked him to check the XP's built-in firewall. He says it is disabled. I did an RPC Ping test with him. From old PCs RPC Ping worked fine. But it failed on the new XP SP1 PCs. What else could there be wrong with XP SP1 that would kill RPCs? Thanks for 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: 5.5/2K co-existance
Ahh . . . . should have know, DNS! I had the DC of 2K listed in the DNS of the 5.5 server. - Original Message - From: Ed Crowley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:38 PM Subject: RE: 5.5/2K co-existance Are the servers in the same or different routing groups? Do you want SMTP mail routed out through the 5.5 server? Have you done any configuration to the Exchange 2000 SMTP virtual server(s) and/or SMTP Connector? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Geek Q Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: 5.5/2K co-existance That is funny you listed that doc, those were the steps I followed. The ADC is up and running, no errors. The issue is I can get delivery receipts from the systems, when I send them mail from the ouside. But when that user replies to the message it goes to never-never land. And internal delivery, with-in the site, is fine. But when ALL users send mail to outside domains it is not listed in the queue and is never delivered. I can ping ouside and do MX lookup properly, but the message are no where to be found. That is why I think I have a real issue. From: William Lefkovics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 5.5/2K co-existance Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:49:45 -0800 When you install Exchange2000 joining an Exchange5.5 site, there is a lot of prep work that would eliminate most of your questions. You don't even mention 'Active Directory Connector'. There is a lot more to know before effectively answering your question as asked. I recommend starting here: http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/techinfo/deployment/2000/E2Kupgradegu ide.a sp William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Geek Q Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Could use some help, need a refresher! When you add a E2K server into a existing 5.5 site. Are the connection for mail delivery automatically setup? I though they were. Do you have to edit the MTA or IMC connections. IMC is using DNS for delivery. There is only one MX record pointing to the 5.5 server. Do I need another directed to the E2K system. The setup is a mailfilter is passing mail from the Internet to a the 5.5 system, then I thought to the E2k box. How do I check this? The issue is I have moved one test mail box to the E2K system, and it intermintaly looses mail inbound and outbound, even when sening to users on the 5.5 system. I did check to see if the HOME server islisted correctly, it is. Thanks, - John Q _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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] _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: 5.5/2K co-existance
Got logging on no errors? Looks like MTA is the issue IMC is not getting messages, non e in the queue, If I knew where never-never-land was I would solve this. - Original Message - From: William Lefkovics [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:34 PM Subject: RE: 5.5/2K co-existance Well now we're getting somewhere. :o) Start with message tracking. Where is 'never-never land' exactly? Also, increasing logging might produce some ugly errors in the application event log (that might make you curse at the ADC). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Geek Q Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions That is funny you listed that doc, those were the steps I followed. The ADC is up and running, no errors. The issue is I can get delivery receipts from the systems, when I send them mail from the ouside. But when that user replies to the message it goes to never-never land. And internal delivery, with-in the site, is fine. But when ALL users send mail to outside domains it is not listed in the queue and is never delivered. I can ping ouside and do MX lookup properly, but the message are no where to be found. That is why I think I have a real issue. From: William Lefkovics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 5.5/2K co-existance Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:49:45 -0800 When you install Exchange2000 joining an Exchange5.5 site, there is a lot of prep work that would eliminate most of your questions. You don't even mention 'Active Directory Connector'. There is a lot more to know before effectively answering your question as asked. I recommend starting here: http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/techinfo/deployment/2000/E2Kupgradegu ide.a sp William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Geek Q Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Could use some help, need a refresher! When you add a E2K server into a existing 5.5 site. Are the connection for mail delivery automatically setup? I though they were. Do you have to edit the MTA or IMC connections. IMC is using DNS for delivery. There is only one MX record pointing to the 5.5 server. Do I need another directed to the E2K system. The setup is a mailfilter is passing mail from the Internet to a the 5.5 system, then I thought to the E2k box. How do I check this? The issue is I have moved one test mail box to the E2K system, and it intermintaly looses mail inbound and outbound, even when sening to users on the 5.5 system. I did check to see if the HOME server islisted correctly, it is. Thanks, - John Q _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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] _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Outlook on Win XP SP1 can't connect to Exchange server
I would check the firewalls on both ends of the connection. -Matt Matthew Bailey LAN Engineer CSK Auto, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Office: (602) 631-7486 Fax: (602) 294-7486 Chaos reigns within. Reflect, repent, and reboot. Order shall return. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 2:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook on Win XP SP1 can't connect to Exchange server HOSTS file. The new ones have the HOSTS file too with the correct settings. He can do a regular ping, by server name, and it replies. Something is killing the RPCs though. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook on Win XP SP1 can't connect to Exchange server Do the old PC's perhaps have a host file or a static route setup on them to your server? -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions I have a customer who has been connecting to our Exchange servers just fine with MAPI Outlook, across the Internet. They have been receiving new PCs from Dell that are already preconfigured with Windows XP SP1. And for some reason users on those PCs cannot connect to Exchange anymore. I asked him to check the XP's built-in firewall. He says it is disabled. I did an RPC Ping test with him. From old PCs RPC Ping worked fine. But it failed on the new XP SP1 PCs. What else could there be wrong with XP SP1 that would kill RPCs? Thanks for 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Outlook on Win XP SP1 can't connect to Exchange server
wouldn't be our firewalls, because he can use other PCs in his office to connect with MAPI just fine. -Original Message- From: Bailey, Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 5:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook on Win XP SP1 can't connect to Exchange server I would check the firewalls on both ends of the connection. -Matt Matthew Bailey LAN Engineer CSK Auto, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Office: (602) 631-7486 Fax: (602) 294-7486 Chaos reigns within. Reflect, repent, and reboot. Order shall return. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 2:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook on Win XP SP1 can't connect to Exchange server HOSTS file. The new ones have the HOSTS file too with the correct settings. He can do a regular ping, by server name, and it replies. Something is killing the RPCs though. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook on Win XP SP1 can't connect to Exchange server Do the old PC's perhaps have a host file or a static route setup on them to your server? -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions I have a customer who has been connecting to our Exchange servers just fine with MAPI Outlook, across the Internet. They have been receiving new PCs from Dell that are already preconfigured with Windows XP SP1. And for some reason users on those PCs cannot connect to Exchange anymore. I asked him to check the XP's built-in firewall. He says it is disabled. I did an RPC Ping test with him. From old PCs RPC Ping worked fine. But it failed on the new XP SP1 PCs. What else could there be wrong with XP SP1 that would kill RPCs? Thanks for 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: CDO contact question
You must set the appropriate properties to tell Outlook that this address should show up as business address. Depending on which version of CDO you use they are different. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: CDO contact question I am pulling contacts out of a database using CDO and putting them in a PF. When the code finishes the contact is there but the Business Address is not showing up in the preview. When I open the contact it is there. Then I close it and it is there. I use the update method (oAddr.Update , True) to make it reload the info, but it is not working? Any ideas? 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: HIPPA and mail relaying
This is you: 220 wck01.cty_admin ESMTP Server (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service 5.5.2 653.13) ready helo 250 OK mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 250 OK - mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 Relaying is prohibited You are good, regardless of what your consultant says. There are other methods of testing open-relays, but as long as you pass the test above, you can go pop the champagne. HTH Deji - Original Message - From: Waters, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:00 PM Subject: RE: HIPPA and mail relaying It's a great tool, it says the site is an open relay. What it does not say is how it came to the decision or what it's using as its proof. We are co.hanover.va.us and I have done a telnet to port 25 and gotten the 550 error. I'm so confused. Thanks Jeff -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: HIPPA and mail relaying Exactly what does the tool say? What is your domain? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Waters, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: HIPPA and mail relaying Since HIPPA is the thread of the day. We are running 5.5 sp3 and I have the Do not reroute incoming SMTP mail tab selected in the Routing tab of the IMS selected. The magic tool that the consultant used, and I don't know what it is, and the CFI LANguard scanner I just used is reporting that the server is an open mail relay. Now the consultant is telling us that he doesn't usually get a false hit on this. So for you exchange guru's out there, have any of you ran into this before, or am I just being a bonehead and missing something. Thanks Jeff _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
