That's absolutely correct. If business is presented with the situation,
then they get to make the decision. If they don't think that it's worth
the cost, then that, as many other things just don't get done.
-Original Message-
From: King, Arron S. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At:
-Original Message-
From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Monday, July 08, 2002 8:27 AM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: Unlimited Quotas
Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas
And the whole idea is that as a support shop, your job is to
support. Has management
, July 08, 2002 10:11 AM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: Unlimited Quotas
Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, at 10:47pm, Woodrick, Ed wrote:
And as to disk drives, I can speak pretty knowledgeably in this
situation, there is virtually no storage limitations within Exchange
used a VAX account that had pretty strict limits (I still use
it. Either you managed it or it would lock you out. I know times
have changed.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 2:32 PM
To: Exchange
But only to the extent that the company's document retention policy
allows.
-Original Message-
From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Monday, July 01, 2002 2:11 PM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: PST as an archive?
Subject: RE: PST as an archive?
PSTs
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
made suggestions. Then I just do my job. And I imagine
some of this is due to the fact I come from having used a VAX account
that had pretty strict limits (I still use it. Either you managed it or
it would lock you out. I know times have changed.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: Woodrick
Why is recovery so difficult?
If you've got the dumpster turned on, then recovery is something the
user can do without fairly easily. Never a need for brick backup.
-Original Message-
From: King, Arron S. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Friday, July 05, 2002 9:33 AM
Posted To:
Spend a few days researching how to solve the problem. Then tell them
that it shouldn't be done and then charge them what the extra server
would have cost in the first place.
-Original Message-
From: James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Thursday, July 04, 2002 12:40 PM
Posted To:
How would you expect to secure Exchange and put it in a DMZ?
Let's say that you secure the box by putting it in the DMZ. This
usually means that you've restricted port access to the server to the
HTTPS port.
Okay, fine. Now why isn't this same box secure if you put it inside the
network and
No, keep the hands off. Leave the server running and never logon to the
console. That's what's make for a stable server.
-Original Message-
From: Mario Fernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Monday, March 18, 2002 7:15 PM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: only 6 Mb
I like it quite a lot. There's a pretty decent number of customers that
are using it. Conferencing sounds good for many organizations, but it's
not a gimme. Workstations have to have microphones and cameras. And
users have to have a reason to use it.
-Original Message-
From: Haris
If you had corruption problems in a mailbox, and since you had some when
you were moving the mailbox, I'd guess that you are having some physical
disk problems. It sounds very similar to a sector read problem.
Can you backup the new store successfully by itself?
Are the disks in RADI?
Is this
That does sound like my argument
First in looking at the arguments, it helps to understand what you are
arguing. Somewhat as stated, your team is right defragmentation should
be done on a regular basis. It reduces the number of extensions on
messages, but more importantly makes it faster
You are not going to be able to realize your quest.
First, don't turn off the dumpster, it saves butts many more times than
it burns them.
A) As our folks at Enron have found out, deleting a message is a long
way from destroying it. Once a message has been created, just assume
that it's there
Don't blame in on Exchange, it's and AD problem. Exchange no longer owns
user accounts.
-Original Message-
From: Ray Beckwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Friday, March 15, 2002 3:59 PM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: Exchange 2000, Outlook 2000 and Name Checking
So what the heck is on the internal LAN? You've moved every piece of
sensitive information into public view.
One REALLY big thing to consider is traffic to the server. Are your
routers and firewalls fast enough to handle approximately 60% of your
current network traffic going to the DMZ? Yep,
Clustering
Hi there
I was looking over the white paper, and according to Microsoft, both
active/passive and active/active are recommended in the below listed
whitepaper. Do you have access to information that suggests otherwise??
Thanks
Russell
-Original Message-
From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto
Where do you get this idea?
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:19 AM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: BLB's
Subject: RE: BLB's
And FWIW, SIS looks like it is becoming less and less important in the
California University of Pennsylvania
-Original Message-
From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:59 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
Use Active/Passive clusters when possible to increase scalability and
reduce failover times
You have HTTP/POP3/IMAP4 users?
That's a horse of a different color, where are the Front End Servers
-Original Message-
From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:22 AM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: Concurrent Users
Subject:
to the server.
Eric Sabo
NT Administrator
Computing Services Center
California University of Pennsylvania
-Original Message-
From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:40 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Concurrent Users
You have HTTP/POP3
for now. It might work for our environment.
Also, I am going to configure a Front-end server.
I respect your opinions on this list.
Eric Sabo
NT Administrator
Computing Services Center
California University of Pennsylvania
-Original Message-
From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto
not been an
issue, it's worked fine - but I know I am still not pushing it.
Thanks for being patient Ed and all...
Thanks
Russell
-Original Message-
From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:59 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
San solution.
I would say these machines should run around 5-10% CPU usage.
Eric Sabo
NT Administrator
Computing Services Center
California University of Pennsylvania
-Original Message-
From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:59 AM
To: Exchange
The GAL is automatically created. Modifying it wouldn't really be a
great idea. Actually the GAL is a LDAP query.
-Original Message-
From: Bansal, Mani (Contractor) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:44 PM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation:
other APIs? By modify
here I mean with Add and delete too.
Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:46 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Modify GAL using ADSI
The GAL is automatically created. Modifying
with GAL's schema. We are suing here Exchange 5.5 You got any idea
what kind of architecture/APIs can help us.
Thank you very much.
Original Message-
From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:52 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Modify GAL
There's a fix for the problem. It's not available for download, but is
available at you local retailer, it's called Windows XP.
-Original Message-
From: Darren Ash [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 8:57 AM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: Microsoft
I've used Bill Power fairly successfully.
As to 3) Web interface, the best answer is actually synchronization.
http://www.slipstick.com/addins/calendar.htm#bill
-Original Message-
From: Tom.Gray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 8:52 AM
Posted To:
Why don't you ask your question on one mail list and then wait for an
answer?
It's rather irritating seeing the same questions posted over and over
again.
-Original Message-
From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 10:40 AM
Posted To: Microsoft
Why not keep all of the information in the Public Folder instead of part
of it?
Yes, it's fairly easy.
Take a look at http://www.bus.orst.edu/ and then select Course Material
(look at the URL). Then select a course. Look familiar?
The last I knew, this ENTIRE WEB was being run from within an
Add it to Public Folder Favorites. Then each user gets their own
read/unread. If you need a global mechanism, then create a subfolder and
move the worked messages into it.
-Original Message-
From: Tim Ault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 11:28 AM
Posted To:
is finding this elusive
utility.
-Original Message-
From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 11:51 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Public Folder Character Trait #263
Add it to Public Folder Favorites. Then each user gets their own
read/unread. If you
Don't do Active/Active, do Active/Passive and everybody's happy. If
Active/Passive slows down user response too much, then Active/Active is
pretty well guaranteed to fail.
Read SP2 Release Notes
-Original Message-
From: Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Tuesday, March 12,
You are reading way too much into the functionality presented. It is not
designed, nor necessarily desired to do the level of blocking that you
are requesting.
The concept is to allow for trusted users to relay through your server,
mainly for POP3/IMAP4 use. In this case, a trusted user is one
appreciate any
thoughts you may have, John
- Original Message -
From: Woodrick, Ed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 4:16 PM
Subject: RE: MS02-011
You are reading way too much into the functionality presented. It is not
designed
Make it Active/Passive as recommended and it's a moot point.
-Original Message-
From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 5:42 PM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: E2k Clustering
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
When they talk about concurrent
Don't do it.
Make it Active/Passive and everything will run much better. With the
current restrictions, there is NO advantage to running Active/Active.
Matter of fact, if you have better response time in Active/Active mode,
they you are pretty well guaranteed to have problems during fail-over.
Should be already working. You might want to increase the cost of the
5.5 IMS to clear the queues and then eventually delete it. Also just
move the MX record to the other server.
-Original Message-
From: Ali Wilkes (IT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Monday, March 11, 2002 1:41
You were expecting them to perform months worth of work for a few
hundred dollars?
As to the problem, since very few if any others have it, maybe the fault
should be looked at as something that you've done.
-Original Message-
From: David J. Culliton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted
Servers normally don't get infected, only messages that the server
holds. It's the clients that do the infecting. This means that your
first line of defense is to make sure that the clients are well
protected.
There are many mailflows within Exchange 5.5 that are, well, just not
scanned. You
It's a scam/virus that's going around. Microsoft never sends updates via
email.
-Original Message-
From: Bill Kuhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Friday, March 08, 2002 8:58 AM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: Virus From Microsoft?
Subject: Virus From Microsoft?
Has
Yes and No.
If you disable the ability for internal POP3 users to send to internal
users, then you disable the capability for anyone to send to internal
users on that connector. That's how servers normally send mail to your
server and users.
If you want to get real asinine about it, you could
Microsoft cautions you against running IIS on a OWA Server?
I sure the heck thought that OWA required IIS
-Original Message-
From: Jason Kelley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 2:30 PM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: Securing OWA
Subject: RE:
OWA works fine, as long as the screen is big enough. You might think
about using IMAP or POP3
-Original Message-
From: Whitlock, Teresa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Thursday, February 07, 2002 1:50 PM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: OWA and PDAs
Subject: OWA and
If your email is reporting undeliverable for www.pantex.com then that is
probably exactly what it should be doing. Now if it was reporting
undeliverable for pantex.com that would be different situation.
Ed
-Original Message-
From: Stevens, Dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At:
As long as the IE session is still running, you'll have cached
credentials. I believe that the 4 minutes is the time that the server
will hold the session up. If the server drops it, the client will
reauthenticate under the covers.
Yes, if you backup, or even if you type in the URL, the session
It would have had to have been bundled before it could be unbundled.
If you don't like the pricing, look at the competition. Then you'll find
that the pricing might not be so cheap. When looking at competition,
make sure that you look at features.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Sanborn
49 matches
Mail list logo
