Hi All,
I have set up several moderated calendars that are accessible via the Public Folders
(running Exchange 5.5). The idea being that anyone of a group of people could make a
booking, and if approved it would be entered into the calendar. There are several
calendars (e.g. Meeting Room 1,
Given the restraints imposed... Write a server side script to send a
notification including the details deemed relevant.
On 2/25/03 3:09, Green, Jacky {PGI~Welwyn} [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
I have set up several moderated calendars that are accessible via the Public
Folders (running
Hi, I wonder if anyone has seen this problem before and could point me in
the right direction for a solution.
Hasn´t found anything on TechNet or the Archives that explains this, or even
better comes up with a solution.
When my users recieves external mail with attachment the attachment randomly
Moving from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2000.
Internet mail is working fine (at the moment) but I am
missing the entries in the event log which tell me how
many connections in and out are being made.
i.e.:-
event 2003 for the outbound
event 2000 for the inbound
Could anybody point me in the right
Do you have two possible routes into your mail system? This would explain
the inconstancy and would point to one of these routes being incorrectly
configured.
Does this happen for all users sending to you or for just one domain?
Ben
-Original Message-
From: Insite [mailto:[EMAIL
Has anyone ever heard of the issue where tracking says that a recipient
has accepted or declined a meeting but it is not entirely accurate? We
have users who have declined meetings but still show up in tracking as
accepted. Any idea's? Outlook 98-2002 users and EX2000 SP3.
Thanks,
Alex
Thanks, there is only one way in, the incoming mail bounce at a Sendmail
server that just passes the mail to my
Inbound IMS that takes care of the decoding. and sorry, no it´s randomly,
happens to different senders in different domains and as I mentioned, it
doesn´t happen all the time for one
User Group
Outlook 2000 SR1 Exchange 2000 SP2 Windows 2000 SP2 Internet Explorer 5.5 SP1
If you have Internet Explorer open and you are at lets say www.support.com and you
also have Outlook open and the mail has a URL in it say www.google.com and you click
on the url in outlook it does not
In IE:
Tools/Internet Options - Advanced Tab
Untick Reuse windows for launching shortcuts
-Original Message-
From: Marc Mearns [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: February 25, 2003 4:31 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: URL Problem
User Group
Outlook 2000 SR1 Exchange 2000 SP2
tools, internet options, advanced..
reuse windows for launching shortcuts
maybe that will work.
Dave Stevens
-IT Network Support-
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Marc Mearns [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:31 AM
To: Exchange
If you have Internet Explorer open and you are at lets say
www.support.com and you also have Outlook open and the mail
has a URL in it say www.google.com and you click on the url
in outlook it does not open a new window but uses the
existing window that is already open. Is there a reg fix
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 25 February 2003 15:40
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: URL Problem
In IE:
Tools/Internet Options - Advanced Tab
Untick Reuse windows for launching shortcuts
-Original Message-
From: Marc
I'd say that this has probably got to be a box that the email is hitting
before the Exchange box... One of your ISP's boxes perhaps.
Ben
-Original Message-
From: Insite [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 25 February 2003 15:15
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Decoding /Encoding of
Friggin Lyris
Remove the sendmail server from the mix and have mail delivered directly to
the Exchange server... Does the problem persist?
On 2/25/03 9:15, Insite [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks, there is only one way in, the incoming mail bounce at a Sendmail
server that just passes the
James - try doing a little bit of research on this:
Take a look at the group meetings on other user's calendars. I'm guessing that
meeting organized by UserA, will still show up as owned by UserA.
Second, try an experiment - update one of those meetings originally set up by UserA
from
Please help, I am in the process of migrating from NT and Exch5.5 to AD
and Exch 2000. The migration is well under way (400 users so far) and we
have had no real problems until now. It seems that once users are
migrated to AD and Exch2000 they can no longer access Public Folders to
which they
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
I'm struggling to understand the concepts of SRS and migration to a single
AG and haven't found too much info either in Technet or other resources,
altho' I did find a good article on the Exchange Admin site.
I haven't moved to a test environment yet as I just want to understand the
concepts
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
Are you transferring and opening on the same workstation? Sounds like a
locked file.
-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
Run Scanpst on it a couple of times and see what happens.
-Original Message-
From: Cooke, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 11:48 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
All,
I am having a problem with a user's PST file here in the office. He got a
new PC and we
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:
I've just started moving mailboxes from one of our servers, figured I'd do
the largest malboxes first and I've noticed something with the first mailbox
moved that I didn't expect.
When I look at the pre/post move mailbox size and number of items there is a
discrepancy - the pre move size and
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
1. Yes, taking the old site's display name.
2. Yes, and even then you can't move servers, just users.
3. You'll have to move to an E2K server in the original site, then,
once in native mode, from the original administrative group to the final
one. But you only need to bring up one
also check the hard disk with chkdsk /f
-Original Message-
From: Cooke, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:59 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2000 and .PST problem
I actually ran scanpst on it and nothing really seems to be happening.
Thanks piles Ed,
So...a key point I've taken is this:
Even when in Native Mode with 5 legacy Sites/AG's, I cannot move Servers
between Administration Groups;
But still some confusion on 3. If I can't move servers between AG's in
mixed or native mode, I would still need a 2nd intermediate
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
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?
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
White space?
I've just started moving mailboxes from one of our servers, figured I'd do
the largest malboxes first and I've noticed something with the first mailbox
moved that I didn't expect.
When I look at the pre/post move mailbox size and number of items there is a
discrepancy - the pre
There's the rub. You would have to set up a common encryption scheme that
would work with your system and every system you would potentially send email
to. The only thing that comes close to a widely-used standard might be PGP.
-Original Message-
From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL
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
It could happen at the client's gateway if they use a mm server or
compatible gateway which can communiate with CAs or remote LDAP server.
Your client still needs access to your public keys regardless of whether you
get the gateway or the client to do it. Have you looked at PGP at all?
Mail
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:
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:
I am going to look at this and see where it takes me. Thanks, Leeann!
-Original Message-
From: Leeann McCallum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:38 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption
It could happen at the
Btw
What products/solutions you looking at?
-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
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
Well, we have just started our internal HIPAA audit with the help of an
outside counsel and engineer's. Encryption was brought up as an
addressable but was strongly stressed as being pushed up in our
schedule. Hope you are having just as much fun as we are.
-Original Message-
From:
Not sure - the more I read it seems it's most likely due to the fact that
the old servers started off with Exchange 5.5 and went through all the
service packs as they were released - I believe there were issues with item
counts that only got fixed with SP4.
My guess at this point is that as this
Yeah, tell me about it. I just got hipaa-tized yesterday...
It is going to be fun.
Have you guys found anything remotely plausible?
-Original Message-
From: Waters, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:46 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE:
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,
Not yet, we did tell him that was on our plan, right after our AD conversion
which I hope I can complete by the end of the year. He said it wasn't a
requirement, however it was stressed to the point that it should be a
requirement. We are now doing the internal network scan for what's wrong
with
I am lucky? :-)
I really don't know. We have a slideshow and books we have to read and
then fill out some forms. Fun stuff.
-Original Message-
From: Waters, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:57 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange server
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 would think so.
-Original Message-
From: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:19 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
Remember we are dealing with a Government regulation here. Yes it does, and
that is probably what they want.
-Original Message-
From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption
Hasn't MS said that they were doing something with Exchange 2K3 to
address HIPPA concerns?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hutchins, Mike
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange server level
In that case, you might also want to look at GPG, as an open-source
alternative to PGP. The two can work together. Doesn't integrate well with
clients, but it does have a library.
Erick
- Original Message -
From: Waters, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
Yes, I meant to say that in my original post, but I didn't. Any
private/public key encryption is going to need the public key of the
recipient. That can be either a pre-defined list, or possibly something
like LDAP.
-Original Message-
From: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
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
Comments inline.
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 Leeann McCallum
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:22 PM
To: Exchange
I occasionally BCC-send broadcast messages to 2500 recipients within our
company. The email contains less than 1k of text. The size of the message in
the sent items folder is 500k, which makes sense when the recipient field is
taken into account.
I find it odd that the email appears with message
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
It sounds like HIPPA is hungry hungry for resources.
-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
lmao
-Original Message-
From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:47 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption
It sounds like HIPPA is hungry hungry for resources.
-Original Message-
From:
Lolah just was I needed after I got all worked up
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:47 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption
It sounds like HIPPA is
What you observe would be consistent with the way I understand
Exchange's routing to work.
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 Tim
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
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
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
Given that exchange provides Single-Instance-Storage I suspect you are
correct -- that the info is in the store, but obfuscated for other users.
-Patrick R. Sweeney
http://boston.craigslist.org/bos/res/8484283.html
- Original Message -
From: Tim Ault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange
Right.
A side effect of this is that each user's mailbox is debited 500k for no
apparent reason.
As a test, I BCC-sent the same message thru the gateway into our domain and
checked the size. Result: message size 1k.
Tim.
x3683
-Original Message-
From: Patrick R. Sweeney
If only you wrote MSWP's..
Tim.
x3683
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 5:00 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Message Size w/BCC
What you observe would be consistent with the way I understand Exchange's
routing to
Create and use a distribution list instead of 500K worth of recipients.
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 Tim Ault
Sent:
tong_in_cheek
Do you even care that it should always get decrypted? Just shoot it all out to the
Internet in the encrypted form (with PGP). If someone can't decrypt it - tough
cookies; as far as the legal deparment is concerned, ***all*** your mail has been
encrypted.
/tong_in_cheek
Ouch! That tong in your cheek must hurt!
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 Andrey Fyodorov
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003
But still some confusion on 3. If I can't move servers between AG's in
mixed or native mode, I would still need a 2nd intermediate server for each
Site/AG to move to the final AG. Is that what your suggesting?
i.e. for each 5.5 site:
5.5 -- move mbx to new h/w -- E2K in old site -- move mbx
Why not:
5.5 -- E2K in old site -- move mbx to new h/w in new AG
?
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 Leeann McCallum
Sent:
tongue_in_cheek
1. Implement SMIME
2. By a SPAM database and send a mailblast message to the whole world*** announcing
that you are gonna use SMIME and could they please send you a message with their
digital signature (which contains THEIR public key) so that going forward you would be
able to
Sign me up for the trusted web of domains.
-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.
I think we are saying the same thing aren't we? It's still 2 user moves.
First - Move users from E55 server to E2K in old site
Second - Move users from E2K server in old site to E2K server in new AG.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 26
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
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.
Write Only Memory.
http://kldp.org/~eunjea/jargon/?idx=write-only-memory
-Patrick R. Sweeney
http://boston.craigslist.org/bos/res/8484283.html
- Original Message -
From: Andrey Fyodorov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 5:43 PM
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:
Right. Two moves, but only one intermediate server.
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 Leeann McCallum
Sent: Tuesday, February
Perhaps the two domain controllers are not in the same domain, even if
they look like they are, as with the Two PDC problem.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Right. Shheess. What a pain in the butt. Thanks. I guess that means I
need to follow that Q instruction twice for each site. I'll be expert after
10 moves.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 26 February 2003 1:25 p.m.
To: Exchange
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
HIPAA does provide detail for securing non-electronic transmission of
Personal information. Basically -- it has to be sealed and trackable
(Rewgistered mail, UPS, FedEx, etc.)
There is information and instruction available at http://www.hipaa.org and
http://www.ahima.org. AHIMA also provides a
When you go into ADUC and click on 'Domain Controllers' do you see both
of your DCs there? Take a good look at your event logs - if you are
having authentication errors, those should be showing up. How about
when you check the zones in your domain's DNS server - are both of the
DCs listed there
Yes, I consider all those items a given - and verified that very early
on.
When inside of Active Directory Users and Computers, the Primary and
Additional Domain controllers I created don't show up in the list of
computers - of course, because they are domain controllers (not
computers), and when
What if the shipping company uses hydrogen fuel cells?
On 2/25/03 18:39, Patrick R. Sweeney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HIPAA does provide detail for securing non-electronic transmission of
Personal information. Basically -- it has to be sealed and trackable
(Rewgistered mail, UPS, FedEx,
Oh my God. The humanity. The humanity.
-Patrick R. Sweeney
http://boston.craigslist.org/bos/res/8484283.html
- Original Message -
From: Chris Scharff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: Exchange server level
Time synchronisation? Only one DC in the root domain should have an
external Time source.
Whar is the status of the replication if you run Replication Monitor
(RepMon)?
-Message d'origine-
De : Mike Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : 25 février, 2003 20:16
À : Exchange
To answer my own question, Imsext.Dll remove the read receipts request from
the journaling mailbox.
-Message d'origine-
De : Bourque Daniel
Envoyé : 23 février, 2003 14:52
À : Exchange Discussions
Objet : RE : ImsExt.Dll
Ya but that's not what I am looking for. Imsext.dll seem to
Replication monitor says All is well - so we can rule that out.
Time Sync is an interesting thing... I have it turned off on all the machines, and I
use an external source to keep all the servers absolutely positively synchronized.
That should be good enough right? Even know the other servers
Well the ideal pipe dream, utopia, ect, ect, pollution free society
idea, you would use nuclear fusion to create the energy needed to create
the hydrogen. But yes using current nuclear power plants cause pollution
too, but then you have that trade off too. Nuclear power creates less
mass weight of
Is the waist generated from a nuclear power plant worse than a beer
belly???
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 26 February 2003 1:54 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption-OT
Well the ideal pipe
There is also Tumbleweed Communications' MMS Secure messaging suite.
www.tumbleweed.com
Drew
-Original Message-
From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange server level encryption
Ok, my eyes are
Not sure about having all servers slave to one external time source. Some
info from Microsoft say it should work, other aren't so clear cut.
Best is that one DC (the PDC emulator in the root domain) is configure with
the external timesource (only one IP address is used, even if you define
more
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
95 matches
Mail list logo
