We have 3. McAfee all the way.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 8:39 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: 3 Layers of Virus protection.
I was curious how many have 3 layers of protection for their email systems.
My current
I understood that you had not scanned the Exchange files with a file
based AV product. However, if you have a product that runs for a long
time, then suddenly stops working (locking up the server, etc) then the
server starts working again when you take the product off, you should
look at the
He did seem a bit defensive didn't he?
Thank you,
Mitchell D. Lawrence
Network Administrator/Systems Analyst
**Good|Cheap|Fast (Pick Two)**
-Original Message-
From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 8:32 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: 3
Depends on what you have set in the configuration. If you have it set to
NOT look inside zip files, they come right through. I have it set to
look inside the zip files and it rips out the blocked extensions, even
when renamed. When user's complain about it, I tell them to Password
Protect the zip
You mean in Viruswall.. right
cause I cant find any type setting in the IMSS product...and tech support
was clueless on it
bill
-Original Message-
From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 9:37 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: SAV for
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Lawrence, Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
Thanks, John. I didn't want to come across as harsh, I just wanted you
to provide some reasoning for why you felt that way. I've seen so many
posts here and elsewhere blindly recommending to folks that they should
run eseutil and/or isinteg, etc., when the poster has no clue how
powerful those
If that were the case Ben, those of us who run Symantec products both
against the mailstore and as file based would have problems, would we
not? No problems here...
Thank you,
Mitchell D. Lawrence
Network Administrator/Systems Analyst
**Good|Cheap|Fast (Pick Two)**
-Original Message-
Bite me. If I told you that you should run eseutil on your databases
just because I think your database is corrupt, without any reasoning
why I thought it was corrupt, would you? I certainly won't.
John responded to my response with what seemed to be a well though out
answer. You, however,
What an asshole
Thank you,
Mitchell D. Lawrence
Network Administrator/Systems Analyst
**Good|Cheap|Fast (Pick Two)**
-Original Message-
From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 8:55 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: 3 Layers of Virus protection.
Boy, I am going to have to say a Rosary for both you guys.
From: Lawrence, Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: 3 Layers of Virus protection.
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:56:42 -0500
What an asshole
Thank
You are right Tony, What I should have said is:
Boy what a prick, *ploink* goes the asshole.
Thank you,
Mitchell D. Lawrence
**Good|Cheap|Fast (Pick Two)**
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 9:00 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
I can say with absolute certainty that Ben is *not* an a-hole. He did learn
a few too many things from me[1], but he's not an a-hole.
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
[1] A few of which were
Well his attitude says otherwise. Very defensive to what seemed like a
reasonable QUESTION, not a directive. When I noted that defensiveness he
jumps down my throat? The world doesn't need any more loose cannons like
this.
I have ploinked the fool. Any further discussions about him can be
So you don't think that a particular product can have problems on one
system and not another? That's a pretty weak argument.
I don't have any problems running it like this, so you shouldn't.
Being a Network Administrator, you of all people should know that
problems are sometimes hit and miss.
What was a reasonable question? I totally missed that. John's original
post said he thought I ought to consider running maintenance (usually
eseutil or isinteg). No reasoning why. I don't like to run powerful
maintenance tools against my server unless I have a good reason why. I
asked John to
Observation:
Messages in my Exch-Swynk folder since 2003-01-15: 8278
Posts from Ben Winzenz, mostly answering questions: 68
Posts from Mitchell Lawrence, just attacking Ben: 4
'nuff said.
-Original Message-
From: Lawrence, Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21,
There are no third party spam filters.
The eMAILs are going to the deleted items folder unread and unopened.
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 3:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Items moving to deleted
And we don't even want to get into my observation of the whole thing...
FWIW Mitchell, one ought not act like an a$$ if one expects to be left
alone. And I mean that in oh so many ways that you couldn't even begin to
fathom...
FWIW Ben, looks like you've got it covered, but lemme know if you
I think what he meant was the setting under Tools, Options, Email
Options, Tracking Options, Delete blank voting and meeting responses
after processing (This is in Outlook 2002, but 98 should have something
similar.
Thank you,
Mitchell D. Lawrence
Network Administrator/Systems Analyst
Well you certainly are persuasive.
*plonk*
-Original Message-
From: Lawrence, Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 21 August 2003 14:57
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: 3 Layers of Virus protection.
What an asshole
Thank you,
Mitchell D. Lawrence
Network
And so it begins...
At least Robert spelled *plonk* correctly... G
-Original Message-
From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 10:31 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: 3 Layers of Virus protection.
Well you certainly are persuasive.
*plonk*
lmao
-Original Message-
From: Ely, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 8:31 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: 3 Layers of Virus protection.
And so it begins...
At least Robert spelled *plonk* correctly... G
-Original Message-
From: Robert
I try to lead by example.
-Original Message-
From: Ely, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 21 August 2003 15:31
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: 3 Layers of Virus protection.
And so it begins...
At least Robert spelled *plonk* correctly... G
-Original
Mitchell seems to like leading with his arse...
-Original Message-
From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 10:41 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: 3 Layers of Virus protection.
I try to lead by example.
-Original Message-
From:
Aye Carumba!
Don, I'd hate to have you or any one of about two dozen other people on this
list mad at me. I think I'd just go unplug my whole network from the
Internet, if I was ever stupid enough to let that happen! :0)
-Original Message-
From: Ely, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Moi? :P
-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 11:04 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: 3 Layers of Virus protection.
Aye Carumba!
Don, I'd hate to have you or any one of about two dozen other people on this
Yeah, Don isn't as quick as some to comment, but he can be pretty brutal when ho does.
Paul Chinnery
Network Administrator
Mem Med Ctr
-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 11:04 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: 3
We are having problems sending certain PDF file attachment (~60kbytes)
through Microsoft Exchange which have been digitally signed using Adobe
Acrobat . When the attachment arrives at the destination and is opened in
Acrobat the signature status is 'Signature invalid'. The problem is not
Yeah, what he said. ;)
-Original Message-
From: Lawrence, Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Thursday, August 21, 2003 9:25 AM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Items moving to deleted items folder
Subject: RE: Items moving to deleted items folder
I think what he meant was the
Just then? :=/
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 9:48 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Items moving to deleted items folder
Yeah, what he said. ;)
-Original Message-
From: Lawrence, Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL
Have you tried disabling Trend to see what effect that has? My WAG is that
Trend is eating it during the scanning process...
-Original Message-
From: Wall, Max [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 6:41 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: PDF Digital Signature
Yep I initially thought it may be a virus checker. I've completely stopped
all the Scan mail services and Symantec on the desktop and still getting the
problem.
Max
-Original Message-
From: Ely, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 21 August 2003 16:57
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject:
What happens if you send it to yourself from the Exchange client. Which
brings up another question, which client are you using?
From: Wall, Max [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: PDF Digital Signature
This company has three levels of protection, it didn't stop Sobig getting
in, but it has stopped it getting back out again!
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 20 August 2003 13:39
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: 3 Layers of Virus protection.
I was
I currently have an exchange server running v5.5. I have the media to
upgrade to v2k. Do I need to upgrade my NT4 boxes to 2k also? Any
drawbacks if I don't?
Also, I would like to set up a global customer contact list. Is that
possible?
Has anyone had any experience with this product? It looks like enough for my org. I
don't know that I need to subscribe to a blacklist but if I can create my own
blacklist for my org it would be a good start.
Robert Blomquist
Supervisor of Information Technology
We are having problems sending certain PDF file attachment (~60kbytes)
through Microsoft Exchange which have been digitally signed using Adobe
Acrobat . When the attachment arrives at the destination and is opened in
Acrobat the signature status is 'Signature invalid'. The problem is not
Sorry if this is a duplicate, I received no confirmation that the first one went. I
did receive a notice that it didn't like my subject Mail Delivery.
On my Mail 55 server I could set Exchange to use DNS to resolve the remote server's
address and send the message directly to that server AND
You are not crazy. =) The setting I believe you are looking for is under
your System Manager, Administrative Groups, (first administrative
group), Routing Groups, Connectors. If I read your message correctly,
you want to create a connector to route email to specific domains
through a relay that
1st, why not skip Ex2K and go right to E2K3, while your at it go ahead and
install Win2K3
2nd, get some books fast
3rd,
Exchange 5.5 will run on Win2K or NT4.0
Exchange 2K will run on Win2K
take a look at http://support.microsoft.com/?id=810591 for more information.
Have fun
Exchange 5.5.
We've been getting hammered by the SOBIG virus here. In the last hour both
the systems that house our IMC failed on port 25 and I had to reboot. I
pretty sure it's due to the flood of messages we are encountering. SOBIG
count was 35,000 day before yesterday 45,000 yesterday.
That makes me feel better that someone else thinks it's there, too. Can you be a
little more specific? I've already been into the properties for the SMTP connector
about 50 times, hoping that the last 49 times I may have overlooked something.
On the General tab I get the option to use DNS or
Do you have an SMTP gateway that you can use to filter out messages based on subject?
-Original Message-
From: Pfefferkorn, Pete (pfeffepe) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 1:56 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Port 25 failing on IMC due to SOBIG.
Exchange
Reason 25 why a SMTP gateway rocks.
- Original Message -
From: Pfefferkorn, Pete (pfeffepe) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 1:55 PM
Subject: Port 25 failing on IMC due to SOBIG.
Exchange 5.5.
We've been getting hammered
Unfortunately no.
-Original Message-
From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 1:58 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Port 25 failing on IMC due to SOBIG.
Do you have an SMTP gateway that you can use to filter out messages based on
subject?
IMS Properties, Internet Mail tab - make sure that the box for Clients
Support S/MIME signatures is checked. You'll need a restart (of the IMS) if
it isn't.
Not sure if that will work, though - could be an encoding issue as well.
--
I don't blindly recommend anything, except maybe my wife's three cheese
pasta in a pot.
But on the technical side of things, I had a BE installation that would
pop up at times and fail a backup telling me the Exchange database was
corrupted. Management told me to prove it using something else
I'd stick my neck out and suggest xwall from www.dataenter.at, only costs
around $300 and there's a demo so you can try it whilst you've the immediate
problem to deal with.
Other option is a *nix gateway, I'm a Windows person but found it pretty
simple to set something up (what we currently use).
GFI has one you can use fully for about 60 days
Joshua Morgan
AIMCO
W. 864 239-1015
-Original Message-
From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 3:15 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Port 25 failing on IMC due to SOBIG.
I'd stick my
What is a good/free *nix SMTP gateway? I've been looking into Exchange
based spam and virus programs, but I'd also like to have another layer.
I've been thinking about setting up a SMTP front end server to run
spam-assassin, but not being a *nix guy, I don't know what other good
programs are out
I'd stick my neck out and suggest xwall from
www.dataenter.at, only costs
around $300 and there's a demo so you can try it whilst
you've the immediate
problem to deal with.
I'll second the Xwall suggestion. It's basically a SMTP relay with
serious filtering and anti-spam features. It
Its probably worth noting that installing the same scanner in 3 places is not 3 layers
of protection, its the same layer of protection 3 times. Not quite the same thing.
If your vendor's scanner engine has a problem picking up a certain type of malware, or
their dat files are slow in coming,
Try http://www.advosys.ca/papers/printable/postfix-filtering.html for a
walkthru, it's what I followed some months back on a Redhat 8.0 box and it
works a charm as a primary MX - I really can't overstate just how good it
all is (spamassassin in particular) for free.
The only free for commercial
Is Xwall installed on the exchange server or a gateway? If its on the exchange server
then would it still solve his problem b/c mail is still hitting his server?
-Original Message-
From: PF: Exchange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 3:43 PM
To: Exchange
Either, we run it on our proxy, but I guess some places don't have multiple
boxes so you can also run it on the exchange box on port 25 and have the IMS
listen on port 24. I'm assuming it'd handle the load, we're a pretty small
outfit in the grand scheme of things but it works fine for us, and
http://spamassassin.org/
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 3:42 PM
To: Exchange
In the process of upgrading E5.5 to E2K. We have upgraded two remote
offices and are about to do the corp office. There is a T-1 between corp
and each of the two remote offices. No direct connection between remote
offices. I created Routing Group connectors in each remote office
pointing to a
FYI,
I've seen instances where it was required to open up port TCP 135 in order
to get the Outlook client to work. The problem is the new msblaster
virus; it uses port 135.
Dave
_
List posting FAQ:
Huh?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 6:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Outlook to Exchange over VPN issues
FYI,
I've seen instances where it was required to open up port TCP 135 in order
to get the
I don't blindly recommend anything, except maybe my wife's three cheese
pasta in a pot...sounds good, can you send me some via email?
-Original Message-
From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 22 August 2003 4:58 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: 3 Layers
Sounds like BAS
-Original Message-
From: Ely, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 6:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook to Exchange over VPN issues
Huh?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
62 matches
Mail list logo
