On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, at 10:36am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1- How this can be when AD works on domain.local
Email addresses in Exchange do not have to have any connection to your AD
domain. I usually just add the Internet domain as an SMTP address, and make
it the primary address.
2- should
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, at 11:21am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My problem with SpamAssassin is that I don't know the first thing about
Linux so that's out of the question.
Running Linux - $32
Linux Administration Handbook - $45
Getting an anti-spam solution that works, for free - Priceless
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, at 1:48pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The goal is to provide our attorneys with the ability to send and receive
secure email with their clients with 1. no user interaction or training
That is a contradiction.
Security is about trust. In order to trust another party, you
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, at 3:55pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you are missing the point of my statement
I think you missed the point of *mine*. :-)
There is no silver bullet for security. You cannot buy a product or
service and thereby achieve any level of security. You cannot apply
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, at 11:29am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Running Exchange 2000 with Cisco Unity's Unified Messaging. Management
wants us to continue to use Cisco Unity to deliver voice messages left on
our IP phones to our email. However, they do not want us to backup the
voice messages.
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, at 5:20pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A mainframe db can get messed up when switching from daylight savings
time.
Most systems designed in the past thirty years or so use an absolute
counter (the number of seconds since Midnight, 1 Jan 1970 is a popular
choice) for time
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, at 7:58am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this mean that EVERY reverse DNS goes to sitefinder.verisign.com??
No. Reverse DNS hasn't been changed. Yet. I don't know if VeriSign has
any control over IN-ADDR.ARPA. Of course, VeriSign does run the SOA for
the root domain,
[My apologies for the cross-post, but this has the potential to impact just
about everybody who uses the Internet...]
As of a little while ago (it is around 7:45 PM US Eastern on Mon 15 Sep
2003 as I write this), VeriSign added a wildcard A record to the .COM and
.NET TLD DNS zones. The IP
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, at 8:17am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
two of the computers have 3rd internet mail accounts on them as well.
Clarify, please.
My domain is not registered as of yet because I cannot nail down an
external static IP.
You do not need a static IP address to have a domain
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, at 11:51am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's 20 master servers for this virus that are out there.
Network Associates has posted the list of master server IP addresses at
http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_100561.htm. I've copied the list below.
Many are advocating
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, at 9:48am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you know of any good 3rd Party SPAM block companies besides edoxs ...
My ISP at home uses Postini (www.postini.com). They seem to do a good
job. No idea if they are what you're looking for.
--
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, at 10:19am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You do not own your ISP's network, your ISP does.
And that makes any arbitrary decision they choose to implement acceptable?
Acceptable? Perhaps not. You can always switch to another ISP. Of
course, if all ISPs are doing the same
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, at 8:37am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also think that most good network citizens should be egress blocking
those ports anyway - there are precious few reasons a corporate network
should be allowing egrees traffic on those ports, or for that matter on
most ports.
Yah. A
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, at 5:44pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Inbound, Inbound Inbound INBOUND INBOUND CONNECTIONS!
Fscking Road Runner SSMs decided that inbound meant _all_.
One man's outbound is somebody else's inbound. Many ISPs are concerned
with stopping existing compromises from
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, at 9:24am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Except that your ISP holds you hostage because it owns your DNS entries
until you can get them moved somewhere else.
Well, first off, my original point was that Internet access is not the
inalienable right that some people seem to think
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, at 12:21pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Needless to say, Microsoft is not on my A-list this week.
You can always switch to another OS. Of course if all OS vendors are doing
the same thing, then you can either accept it or go without automated
software updates. No one is
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, at 9:41am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One man's outbound is somebody else's inbound.
Right, which is why all firewalls come with default rules set to block all
inbound and all outbound traffic.
By default, most products on the market are hideously insecure, and should
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, at 4:52pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone heard of the Dept. of Homeland security putting out an
anouncement to ISP's to block TCP/UDP ports 135, 137, 445?
The DHS advisory doesn't target ISPs in particular.
Many ISPs block 135, 137, 138, 139, and 445. More have
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, at 9:21am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or call any of the more popular Anti-virus software suite companies who
will be happy to sell you products necessary for an Exchange
environment
I imagine most people running Notes still have MS-Windows on the desktop,
and thus
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, at 2:16pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks everyone for your valued opinions and recommendations of black
lists.
People are right that blacklists are operated by vigilantes. Of course,
what they don't mention is that *everything* on the Internet is operated by
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, at 8:37pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm attempting to convince my management to migrate from Lotus Notes to
Exchange. Mail capabilities aside, is there a good source out there for a
point by point comparison of the collaborative features of both platforms?
Call your
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, at 12:26pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does a small to medium sized company with no particular high-sensitivity
data need...encryption, authentication beyond Windows security, VLANs,
ACLs on routers, etc?
More information is needed to answer that question. Security is one
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, at 6:49am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That being said, SCSI and Fibre Channel are built from the ground up for a
single controller to manage multiple (2) drives. IDE (in any variety)
isn't. I doubt dropping a RAID5 ATA array would significantly improve on
that issue.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, at 8:23am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
~When my clients begin a new email, and they click the to: button, then
click the drop down, there are two listings for Contacts. The problem
is, when you click on the first one, it states that it is not available,
yet the second Contacts
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, at 2:33pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What alternatives would I have?
Myself, I would setup a low-cost Red Hat Linux box, and use the mailman
mailing list software it comes with to do it. But I know *nix pretty well.
If you don't, there are plenty of products for
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, at 3:04pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He doesn't take daily backups, and is fully aware that if there's a
problem, to copy the OST's to PST's, etc. He's never lost a single piece
of data.
... and I know people who don't ware their seatbelts because they've
never been in
On Thu, 29 May 2003, at 9:35am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another question - how does the Secondary server KNOW that it's a
secondary server? How is it setup differently, from the primary server?
Others have answered your question well, but I feel it worth emphasizing
that MX records only
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, at 7:53pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I strongly suspect that HIPAA and e-mail don't mix.
In my opinion, the issue isn't so much e-mail but the fact that most
people want nothing to do with security. They consider it a hassle; an
obstacle to overcome. As long as that
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, at 8:46am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're all talking like it's an either/or situation.
Not so much either/or as you've already lost.
If, on the other hand, it comes straight to you then it's as secure as
it's possible to get with *regular* e-mail.
Regular email
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, at 9:00am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With the new HIPAA regulations regarding patient information privacy going
into effect soon we may need to encrypt our outbound email messages so
that they can only be read by the intended recipient.
This question does not have an easy
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, at 11:40am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No one gets my MX records but me. Period. There's too much marginally
confidential information crossing email these days to make that a
practical solution for all byt the smallest shops.
The thing is, cleartext email being sent over
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, at 9:25am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference is that it isn't being relayed through my ISP's mail
servers. Therefore, to my ISP, its just another set of traffic on the
wire. By it passing through a third party mailer, by definition it must be
stored before being
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, at 1:13pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
when the user is in the office, everthing is fine. when the user works at
home, it will take up to 15 minutes to open a 1meg attachment. opening
e-mails with no attachments takes up to a minute. the circuit is a isdn
line, 128k.
A
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, at 12:52pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do not post questions that you could/should have been able to answer
yourself.
There's a radical concept. Next people will be expecting us to think for
ourselves, too.
;-)
--
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The opinions expressed
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,
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
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, at 9:18am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whats this crap about a icy grip in the US that I see in the news?
Try visiting New England. :-)
It was one lonely, solitary degree when I got into my car this morning at
8 AM. It gets colder at night. With the wind chill, it's 20
On 1/22/03 2:34, Tim Gowen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm about to have to justify my personal belief that e-mail should be
text-only and no HTML-based messages should go out from my Exchange 5.5
server.
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 9:14am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, can't help you. I don't
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 4:27pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Meanwhile, HTML email is often 100% to 1000% bigger than the plain-text
equivalent. No, that is not a typo. One-thousand percent. Ten times.
That is a mighty big increase in size just to add... well, nothing.
Smart thinking; that's
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 4:25pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have AV software to protect me from ... hidden tracking bugs.
You strip all image references from incoming HTML email? Doesn't that
make it rather like... text? :)
However, making a blanket rule and applying it without
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 2:30pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds pretty dull and 1980's to me.
I like dull. Dull means no surprises. :-)
Not one of your reasons poses a problem in environments I work in.
I guess they don't apply then.
1000% bigger for the same content is nonsense.
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, at 1:47pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have read that Titanium will have some sort of RBL feature.
But will it have customizable NDRs and Storage Limit Warnings? lol
How about a feature to automatically append text to every message?
--
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, at 9:58am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Best piece of experience I can share is to spend as much time as possible
understanding the customer requirements and business processes ... the
cost savings of doing the work right the first time can be tremendous,
even if it does seem
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, at 1:01pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We were going to go with the Hitachi, but a slick salesman knew the key to
our manager's heart (mets tickets) ...
Ah, yes. I love it when IT purchases are based on solid, objective
criteria and unbiased, informed decisions.
--
Ben
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, at 10:45am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the best/most reliable 60/120 hardware (and software you are using
for it if it is not NTBackup) for those on a budget out there now?
Aside from Veritas Backup Exec, you can look at NovaNet from NovaStor.
We use both, and find
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, at 10:17am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm thinking of going to the USB2 external drive system for offsite
storage ...
Check the speed of the unit (throughput in actual use, not the speed of
the HDD, or the IDE interface, or the USB2 interface) before you make a
purchase.
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, at 9:02am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what is the fastest way in restoring a deleted edb logs? E00.log was
deleted accidentally and then the mailbox store are not mounted.
Ouch. You're hosed. Call MS PSS (Microsoft Product Support Services).
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, at 12:36pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I remember doing an Exchange install in Tucson in July. I needed a
reefer coat in the computer room.
Heh heh. He said reefer.
--
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, at 12:26pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We also have some people that use Palm's via POP to gain access to
messages.
Anyone here using IMAP to access Exchange from a handheld? I'm seeing
increasing numbers of handheld devices and/or software for them that support
IMAP. I'm
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, at 4:05pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am getting the following error. when people try to Reply to All. they
do not get this error if they hit the new message button and put in the
same address.
Obviously, they're not the same address, or it would work. Maybe the
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, at 8:57am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unlike other vendors that make you go through a logic tree to decide which
patch packages to install, Microsoft makes it easy. Just install the
latest package for your application and/or OS.
Unless it's Microsoft Office. Or the
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, at 2:05pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I missing something? What does eventid.net provide that TechNet and
Deja don't 10x over?
Easier and more precise search capability, and a database tailored to the
particular problem domain.
--
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, at 10:38am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would cause my messages to AOL addresses to be rejected by AOL?
Error message?
--
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not |
| necessarily represent the views or
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, at 1:39pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe you should look into getting a better RAID controller. Her theory
is right.
I'll second that. There seem to be a large number of really sh*tty
IDE/ATA RAID controllers on the market these days. We had one customer
who (against
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, at 3:16pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With Outlook, when you add host name (Microsoft Exchange server) on PC
dialing in, i.e. server.domain.com, Outlook switches it to server when
performing check name. Why does Outlook do this?
Because Outlook (or, rather, MAPI) is
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, at 2:19pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you create the logical partitions with hardware (selection drives for
the array and partition size) OR you create a RAID with the total usable
space and using the OS to partition it? Is there a preference?
Myself, I would make the
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, at 5:40pm, Rob Hackney wrote:
The marketing dept of my company has just told me they were asked to buy
some mass email software called infacta (www.infacta.com) by a director.
Apart from the obvious issues like bandwidth (they're on a 128 dialup
isdn!) what other issues
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, at 6:13pm, Mike Carlson wrote:
Would it be better to have a single processor PII 400 w/ 384MB of RAM or a
dual PII 300 with 256MB of RAM? The sever doesn't get a lot us usage but
I want to be better prepared for when the usage increases.
Go with the one with more RAM.
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, at 3:09pm, Sandhya Pai wrote:
Could someone give me specific examples or pointers on how can I justify
not doing it or your opinions on why it's safe or not?
One of our customers insisted we turn it on. We did so. Then @Home went
out of business, but someone with OOO
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, at 12:40pm, Ben Winzenz wrote:
Sorry, but that is NOT Out of Office. That is a rule that was set up.
Out of Office fires only ONCE per sender. Period. Allowing
autoforwarding to the internet will cause mail loops, but not Out of
office to the internet.
Er, oh
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, at 1:31pm, Tom Meunier wrote:
Charmap says it's 241.
Too bad ASCII only defines a 7-bit (0-127) character set. :-)
--
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not |
| necessarily represent the views or policy
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, at 12:04pm, David S. Michel wrote:
We have a user who wants the ñ in his name to also be in his email
address instead of a plain old n.
We have a user who wants to win the lottery. :-)
However, this user insists that at his last firm his actual email address
was
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 that impacts the
per user storage.
Yah, and what about when you run out of physical disk space, or tape
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, at 9:18am, James Liddil wrote:
I am being asked to justify why I have set quotas for users on our E2K server
with 25 users.
[...snip...]
So besides these reasons are there any other reasons that I should be
thinking about?
Also, keep in mind, that while your existing
On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, at 11:24am, Heather Bellson wrote:
i was wondering if any of you know a good forum for sendmail discussion.
something similar to this list (i.e., a bunch of guru's who are nice
enough to answer even the dumb questions).
http://www.isp-lists.com, in particular
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, at 4:05pm, Vincent Avallone wrote:
Where does the incoming email go on an Exchange 2000 machine?
Is there like a /var/spool directory where mail goes and is waiting to
be read, or does the email automatically get redirected to the users
mailbox.
I think I figured it
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, at 4:39pm, Vincent Avallone wrote:
The bottom line is that I am trying to verify that the duplicate messages
this one user is receiving from this one specific company, is not a piece
of mail on my server being resent, but actually their email server
resending the message
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, at 8:01pm, David Gibbons wrote:
When I moved the accounts to the new server I did check profiles and they
all where re-created and pointed to the new server.
Just to confirm, you have tried removing and recreating the MAPI profile
on the workstation?
We had symptoms
68 matches
Mail list logo
