RE: postini spam control
Gonna really suck if your CEO misses an important email and needs it STAT, and you need to go to a third party to get it back.always bad news to take something as essential as email and put it in someone else's control. John -Original Message- From: Douglas, Josh D. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 9:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: postini spam control anybody have any information or tried Postini for their spam control. we have looked at all the major players and we are thinking about surfcontrol but these people called us up and gave a good pitch. I guess we point our mx records to them, which i'm not sure I like, and then they scan it for spam and forward it on to us. I've looked through the archives and didn't find any info, which is probably all I need to know, but I thought I would present it again to see if anyone has any comments. thanks Josh _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: postini spam control
Agreed - I shouldn't have made the assertation absolute. John -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 10:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: postini spam control I disagree with the assertion that it is _always_ bad news to outsource. There are a number of outsourced spam filtering solutions where the administrator can log in and access mail which had been quarantined. That mail can then be released to the intended recipient. By outsourcing the filtering, you are able to save on bandwidth (less mail incoming... Which makes a difference if you're blocking 50k+ messages a day) and the maintenance of the hardware and software is outsourced to a group which does nothing but think about that all day. Similar things can be true of outsourcing e-mail services in general. Certainly outsourcing such services is not appropriate for every organization, but by the same token there more than a few shops which insist on doing everything in house, when all signs point to outsourcing being a better solution for them. On 3/21/03 9:33, John Steniger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gonna really suck if your CEO misses an important email and needs it STAT, and you need to go to a third party to get it back.always bad news to take something as essential as email and put it in someone else's control. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Help
Is the problem workstation using DNS? Is it using WINS? The DNS server itself may not be the problem, but if that one machine isn't using it.. John -Original Message- From: Matt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 12:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Help Negative dns..laptop and anyother computer works. -Original Message- From: Dupler, Craig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Help In other words, it is a DNS issue. -Original Message- From: Charles Marriott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 6:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Help try the ip #. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 7:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Help OK here goes. I am emailing this help request from my laptop using outlook 2002. Server is an exchange 2k sp3 enterprise and 2k advance server sp3 both items. My laptop is on my desk next to my workstation. It is logged into exchange and using this mail box no problems. Both laptop and Workstation are running XP pro SP1 and outlook 2002. My workstation cannot connect to the exchange Server. I keep getting name cannot be resolved. I have removed office and reinstalled no help. Does anyone have any idea's?? Help if you can I'm out of Idea's!!! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OWA and attack by Chinese?!?
It didn't also happen to say Welcome to http:// www.worm.com, did it? Sounds like Code Red. Read this: http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/codered.worm.html John J. Steniger -Original Message- From: Orin Rehorst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 11:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: OWA and attack by Chinese?!? Running Exchange 5.5 on Win2K server, latest service packs. Users over weekend accessed using OWA. Got message at sign on page has been hacked by Chinese. After that page wouldn't come up. Problem cleared when we rebooted server. Please advise. TIA Regards, Orin Orin Rehorst Port of Houston Authority (Largest U.S. port in foreign tonnage) e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (713)670-2443 Fax: (713)670-2457 TOPAS web site: www.homestead.com/topas/topas.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]
RE: virus like behavior friendgreetings.com
FYI, is appears this worm also is a p0rn spammer. http://www.msnbc.com/news/826033.asp?0dm=C13HT John J. Steniger -Original Message- From: Morrison, Gordon [mailto:Gordon.Morrison;Bain.com] Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 12:59 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: virus like behavior friendgreetings.com I have had a couple of reports from users this morning saying that have received an email from people containing a link to an e-card at www.friendgreetings.com, when they click on it the web site starts going through their address book and emailing everyone an e-card on the user's behalf. acts like a virus, but doesn't look like one to scanners. /Gordon _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: viewer of PST
Hmm.I believe this can be done in Outlook. Instead of using the Import option from the file menu, use the Open, then Personal Folder File. It should open it in another folder in Outlook, but not import the messages into your Inbox. John J. Steniger -Original Message- From: Khoi Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 10:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: viewer of PST Sensitivity: Private Hi exchangers, Does anyone know of a utility that will allow a user to view their pst off line without importing it into your current mailbox to see old messages. If there is none, can anyone suggest the best practice to perform this function? TIA -- KN _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Policy issue
Why not set limits on the individual mailboxes and leave the management up to the mailbox owners as they get full? John J. Steniger -Original Message- From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 10:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Policy issue I seem to be facing resistance from management on implementation of an e-mail policy. Despite everything our legal counsel provided and such are not ready to go forward. They have a problem with either the system of myself deleting mail that past the retention period. Some feel that a member of management should be the one deleting the e-mail. I'm sure you can see what's wrong with that picture. I am looking for advice, besides sit on my hands and wait until an event happens that forces them to implement a policy. Jim Liddil _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Policy issue
Good luck - trying to do the same thing myself. I had assumed you'd already gotten the OK for a policy. Try making an argument in terms of money - are you using Enterprise version? If not, explain the growth patterns you're seeing, hard limit on the Standard IS, and how much it'd cost to upgrade to Enterprise, buy more disks, or another server vs. just imposing limits (no cost, but inconvenience and user responsibility). It's helped me to try and show the money people the inevitability of having limits, and also to give them the power to choose their own. Unfortunately, if the money folks decide that the business needs a holy freakin' ton of mail, they'll at least know what it'll cost to support it. John J. Steniger Network and Security Manager Familymeds, Inc. Phone: 860-676-1222 X633 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.familymeds.com -Original Message- From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Policy issue Because that would require that a policy be put in place to force mail (or even just inbox) limits. I can't get the powers that be to even let the server do this via implementing a policy. Jim -Original Message- From: John Steniger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 10:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Policy issue Why not set limits on the individual mailboxes and leave the management up to the mailbox owners as they get full? John J. Steniger -Original Message- From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 10:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Policy issue I seem to be facing resistance from management on implementation of an e-mail policy. Despite everything our legal counsel provided and such are not ready to go forward. They have a problem with either the system of myself deleting mail that past the retention period. Some feel that a member of management should be the one deleting the e-mail. I'm sure you can see what's wrong with that picture. I am looking for advice, besides sit on my hands and wait until an event happens that forces them to implement a policy. Jim Liddil _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: need ammo
You'll find that with large messages of that size, you may be fielding calls from remote users who can't understand why, when they dial in, their email takes a couple hours to download. Explaining to them that they have several large attachments waiting for them usually sufficiently frustrates them into seeing your point of view (provided you only provide dial-up services for remote users). Its all a matter of user training. Typical users don't have any clue that there's a better way to transfer files, not only externally, but internally. Once you explain FTP, or even file shares, to them, it usually helps the problem. If you don't happen to be using Enterprise version, and you have a bunch of packrats, you may find that with larger attachment sizes, you'll fill up your IS rather quickly - happened to us with only a couple hundred users. Convincing people not to send email is much easier than convicing them to delete email already sent. John J. Steniger Network and Security Manager Familymeds, Inc. Phone: 860-676-1222 X633 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.familymeds.com -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 5:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: need ammo Hi all. I have this customer who is unhappy about 10MB message limit size on SMTP connectors in our shared Exchange environment. Does anyone have any scary stories about what happens when people try to send too many messages that are too large? What is a reasonable size for SMTP message? Our servers originally had higher limits but a few times large SMTP messages crashed the servers. I just need to convince this customer that it is not a good idea to send large messages. Thanks! Andrey Fyodorov _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: unknown users e-mails entering environment
What do the emails look like (subject, body) - are they similar? John J. Steniger -Original Message- From: Jon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:21 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: unknown users e-mails entering environment exchange 5.5, sp4, nt4, sp6a I am seeing a rash of e-mails being delivered to users where the FROM and TO addresses are ex-employees of the company. The users who are getting the e-mails are not on the FROM, TO, or BCC lines. if I send an e-mail to any of the addresses in the e-mail, I will get an undeliverable message stating user not in address book. any sugestions?? thanks Jon _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Unlimited Quotas
Good point =). But we never had limits before - and this led to us hiting the 16g limit with essentially 10 main users having 1-3g of email a piece. 'Twas very ugly trying to convince people to let go ;). John J. Steniger -Original Message- From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas Fair enough, he did however say he had 25 users:-) He would need to keep the 16 GB limit in mind. Curbing the attachments will help to stretch the amount of actual mail you can have. Sander -Original Message- From: John Steniger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 05 July 2002 03:40 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas I believe this applies to E2K as well as 5.5 - keep in mind if you don't have the Enterprise version of Exchange, you do have a software limit as to how big your IS can get (16g) - disk space won't help you with that. We hit this on our server several weeks ago - it is not pretty. John J. Steniger -Original Message- From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas It's mostly a business call. Hard drive space is cheap and there are various backup systems that cater for large mail stores. The admin job is to provide your users with the best possible email system, so if they need to go back all the time to old mails you may find yourself in hot water if you put restrictions on. Of coarse money also plays a role. I would let management make the call to go cheap and small or large and expensive, let them live with it as there are benefits to both ways. Sander -Original Message- From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 05 July 2002 03:18 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Unlimited Quotas I am being asked to justify why I have set quotas for users on our E2K server with 25 users. Things that come to mind are that if we give users unlimited stores, we will have to buy more disk space in time. Also we have a single processor server with 512 ram. So I would make a WAG and say that we will be looking at a second processor and more RAM. I am already looking at more RAM since our server is paging quite a bit. And as we implement archiving and journaling this will impact disk space as well as the backup (time, number of tapes). I also realize that allowing unlimited space leads to users never managing their e-mail. So besides these reasons are there any other reasons that I should be thinking about? Thanks. Jim Liddil _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Unlimited Quotas
I agree - the situation we had here was that limits were never established when Exchange was installed - people will convince themselves they need everything they've ever received if they're given the chance (this applies to file storage, as well). In our case, it was mostly a training issue - once we showed users how to archive, and how to remove large attachments to disk, and how to delete their deleted items folder, they became (with a couple exceptions) quite cooperative. John -Original Message- From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 10:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas MTC -- I would start asking your users why do they need unlimited space to store emails? Depending on your quotas/limits I could see where this might be a problem if they get large files (CAD drawings, spreadsheets, powerpoint presentations, etc.). In that case they should just save the large files off to disk and delete the email. If they REALLY, REALLY need to keep it in email then have them archive it off to a PST (no grunts from the gallery Ed). PST's have their purpose. Just make sure they put it in a location where it can be backed up. Otherwise I am with you - give them limits - make them realistic for your environment - and force them to manage their accounts. Yes there will be exceptions (the President of the company, CFO, and other big wigs), but for the rest of the org (no matter how big it is) keep your employees on a leash. If you don't sure shootin the lack of limits will be abused. Regards. Nate Couch EDS Messaging -- From: Sander Van Butzelaar Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 5, 2002 08:36 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RE: Unlimited Quotas It's mostly a business call. Hard drive space is cheap and there are various backup systems that cater for large mail stores. The admin job is to provide your users with the best possible email system, so if they need to go back all the time to old mails you may find yourself in hot water if you put restrictions on. Of coarse money also plays a role. I would let management make the call to go cheap and small or large and expensive, let them live with it as there are benefits to both ways. Sander -Original Message- From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 05 July 2002 03:18 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Unlimited Quotas I am being asked to justify why I have set quotas for users on our E2K server with 25 users. Things that come to mind are that if we give users unlimited stores, we will have to buy more disk space in time. Also we have a single processor server with 512 ram. So I would make a WAG and say that we will be looking at a second processor and more RAM. I am already looking at more RAM since our server is paging quite a bit. And as we implement archiving and journaling this will impact disk space as well as the backup (time, number of tapes). I also realize that allowing unlimited space leads to users never managing their e-mail. So besides these reasons are there any other reasons that I should be thinking about? Thanks. Jim Liddil _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Unlimited Quotas
Not to get into a war of words (as this appears to be something near and dear to your heart), often IT is put in the position to have to: A) Save money by not spending any, period (on Exchange or any other type of upgrades, or disk, or what have you..) B) Provide virtually unlimited service (unlimited file share, unlimited email storage, etc) These two opposing conditions are imposed on us by those far more important than myself in an organization. In an organization, the fact that it is sometimes impossible to meet these two criteria at the same time if often lost on those who make these decisions. It happened in our organization, and it was decided that limits should be imposed. Did we run out of space directly because we had no limits to begin with? I happen to believe no limits encourages lazy usage (storing everything, to the point where you can't remember if you need it, so you keep it) - I certainly may be mistaken. It seems clear to me that if reasonable limits are imposed, and adjusted as needs change, one can get much more use out of a system. To speak to another of your points, sometimes more disk drives don't do the trick. Exchange (not Enterprise) imposes a software limit on the information store. Disk won't help if you hit that. I agree with you that you won't necessarily run out of space if you restrict storage. However, I would say its rather likely, from my experience. It may not happen within a week, or even a year, but users aren't typically concerned with keeping their file and email storage neat and clean so to not fill up the server - they have their own jobs to worry about. Maybe the users in your organization are different. John J. Steniger -Original Message- From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 2:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas Why do you pretend to be arrogant enough to be able to dictate the needs of others? You don't seem to have any business drivers to justify your actions. And who is to say that getting additional disk drives for the user email storage isn't out of the question? And as to storage, it has nothing to do with processor and RAM. And most importantly, just because you don't restrict the users storage, doesn't mean that you will run out of space. That's absolutely hogwash, a justification of why many IT shops get such a bad reputation. Your job is to SUPPORT your users, not be a dictator. In the whole scheme of things, a few thousand dollars for some disk space and maybe an upgrade in Exchange editions is petty cash. The BUSINESS driver should not be an IT limit. Exchange really is able to support most business drivers with little difficulty. In the limitation of storage, that should be completely dictated by you organizations Document Retention Policy, which should be dictated by the lawyers. And it shouldn't even be an IT function to enforce, even if you can. -Original Message- From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Friday, July 05, 2002 9:18 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: Unlimited Quotas Subject: Unlimited Quotas I am being asked to justify why I have set quotas for users on our E2K server with 25 users. Things that come to mind are that if we give users unlimited stores, we will have to buy more disk space in time. Also we have a single processor server with 512 ram. So I would make a WAG and say that we will be looking at a second processor and more RAM. I am already looking at more RAM since our server is paging quite a bit. And as we implement archiving and journaling this will impact disk space as well as the backup (time, number of tapes). I also realize that allowing unlimited space leads to users never managing their e-mail. So besides these reasons are there any other reasons that I should be thinking about? Thanks. Jim Liddil _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Possible New Virus?
Appears to be a Frethem Worm. From Norton: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] l John J. Steniger Network and Security Manager Familymeds, Inc. Phone: 860-676-1222 X633 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.familymeds.com -Original Message- From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Possible New Virus? Hi All, I've seen several messages coming in this morning with the subject line Re: Your Password!, an attachment named decrypt-password.exe, and the same Content-Type: audio/x-midi that Klez uses to auto-run. The messages are 50k or so in size. Is anyone else seeing this? My usual virus info sources don't have anything on it. -Peter __ This message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please delete it and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send this message to anyone else. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Possible New Virus?
Curses. Tack an l onto the end of that link and it oughta work. -Original Message- From: John Steniger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? Appears to be a Frethem Worm. From Norton: http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.fr [EMAIL PROTECTED] l John J. Steniger Network and Security Manager Familymeds, Inc. Phone: 860-676-1222 X633 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.familymeds.com -Original Message- From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Possible New Virus? Hi All, I've seen several messages coming in this morning with the subject line Re: Your Password!, an attachment named decrypt-password.exe, and the same Content-Type: audio/x-midi that Klez uses to auto-run. The messages are 50k or so in size. Is anyone else seeing this? My usual virus info sources don't have anything on it. -Peter __ This message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please delete it and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send this message to anyone else. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Exchange2000] Dialup Access
Are you using WINS or a host file? Depending on the speed of the dialup, I've found that the IP and name of the exchange server in the hosts file goes a long way - regardless of whether a user can ping, often WINS resolution just times out. John -Original Message- From: David McSpadden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 2:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: [Exchange2000] Dialup Access She's offsite and a true user. She has troubles logging in. I might have to have her bring in the PC. I just hate to do that because she lives 2 hours away. - Original Message - From: Andy David [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 1:11 PM Subject: RE: [Exchange2000] Dialup Access Is Server A still up? Why not just recreate the Outlook profile? -Original Message- From: David McSpadden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 2:07 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Exchange2000] Dialup Access I have a user that works from home. I have an Exchange 5.5 sp4 NT4.0sp6a server and the user has a Windows 98 Outlook 2000 client. I have talked with her and she can authenicate to the exchange server because she is resolving her name in the profile using the Check Name button. But when she tries to open the Client it gives her errors saying she can not connect to the server. She can ping both the IP and hostname. I am confused. This happened after I moved from Server A to Server B. This is my only dialup client and my only casuality out of 325 mailboxes. I am confused. Can anyone help?? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Tied to your PC? Cut Loose and Stay connected with Yahoo! Mobile http://us.click.yahoo.com/QBCcSD/o1CEAA/sXBHAA/eJp0lB/TM -- ---~- Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange 2000 FAQ: http://www.exchange-mail.org/faq.html Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
