RE: Outlook Form Radio Buttons
You can also use a different type of field on the read page. Use the radio buttons on the compose page but use a label control on the read page. It shows the information but enforces that the user cannot make any changes. (Easier than coding or marking the fields as read-only.) Scott -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 9:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook Form Radio Buttons Ok, I have all the needed frames setup. I have another issue. say I choose a particular selection, how do I get the three I didn't select to be grayed out when I send the form. -Original Message- From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 9:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook Form Radio Buttons Use groups property of the radio buttons. Alternatively you can put the related radio buttons into frames. The frames one worked better here where we still have the dreadful Outlook 98 clients. S. -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 8:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Outlook Form Radio Buttons Ok, I am creating an Outlook Form that has quite a few radio buttons, but it will only let me choose one on the whole page. I have different categories, and I need to choose one for each category, how do I get this broken up so that I can choose more than one radio button on the form? Chris _ 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: Accessing OWA via a Proxy/Relay Server
It does sound like a Front-end/Back-end ... if so, make sure you are using basic (clear text) authentication... it won't work without it. Are you getting any error messages in your event log ? I'd be very wary of opening up Port 80 on my firewall... have you considered using SSL as well ? Regards Mylo -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 February 2002 04:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Accessing OWA via a Proxy/Relay Server So you set it up as a front end/ back end deployment? - Original Message - From: Alex T [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:24 PM Subject: Accessing OWA via a Proxy/Relay Server Apologies in advance if this question is dumb or has already been addressed in the archives or elsewhere--we are still Win2K/Exchange novices and would appreciate some help. We upgraded to Exchange from a UNIX/sendmail system. About 75 mailboxes. Server is running Win2K SP2 and E2K SP2. Clients running Windows98/NT4 with Outlook 2000. We also have a few internal Mac clients that access Exchange via OWA. We now want to open up OWA for off-site users and do so securely. We installed a new separate Win2K SP2 server behind the firewall, opened the firewall to allow Internet traffic to this new server, and enabled IIS on it with virtual folders pointing to the OWA folders on the Exchange Server. This new server is running ISA. When we attempt to connect from the outside using http://newservername/exchange, we are prompted for user/password, but after entering an administrator userID/password (who has an e-mail account), we get 403 Unauthorized Access error. We are able to connect to other non-exchange folders on the Exchange server using this method (e.g. http://newservername/intranet to reach the corporate Intranet site). We have followed the directions in MS articles Q308599, Q290113, Q207655. What are we missing here? _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _ 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: bringing it all together
If you've got the cash look at DirXML from Novell Regards, Mylo -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 27 February 2002 22:37 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: bringing it all together Avaliable options I'm aware of: 1. Compaq LDAP Directory Synchronization Utility (LDSU) 2. Microsoft Metadirectory Server 3. SimpleSync 4. MS Mail Dirsync (unsupported by Microsoft, but is supposed to work) 5. InterOrg tool Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of RB Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: bringing it all together Folks, a quick question which probably has many answers. With the build of a new Exchange 2000 organisation if I want to synchronise all the GALS from the MSX 5.5 orgs and add to this the E2k GAL In order to get one version of the GAL across all orgs (5.5 and E2k). Is there a tool that can do this ? Thanks RB _ 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: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
This one is giving me a headache -- I have Exch 5.5 running on a Win2k server. I'm looking for the fine print that tells me which patch to apply first, or at all, if any, or both. Your mileage may vary. Sigh. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: FW: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 -Original Message- From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-012.asp Malformed Data Transfer Request can Cause Windows SMTP Service to Fail Originally posted: February 27, 2002 Summary Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft(r) Windows(r) 2000 Server and Professional, Windows XP Professional and Exchange Server 2000 Impact of vulnerability:Denial of Service Maximum Severity Rating:Low Recommendation:Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should apply the patch; all others should disable the SMTP service. Affected Software: - Microsoft Windows 2000 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional - Microsoft Exchange 2000 Technical description: An SMTP service installs by default as part of Windows 2000 server products. Exchange 2000, which can only be installed on Windows 2000, uses the native Windows 2000 SMTP service rather than providing its own. In addition, Windows 2000 and Windows XP workstation products provide an SMTP service that is not installed by default. All of these implementations contain a flaw that could enable denial of service attacks to be mounted against the service. The flaw involves how the service handles a particular type of SMTP command used to transfer the data that constitutes an incoming mail. By sending a malformed version of this command, an attacker could cause the SMTP service to fail. This would have the effect of disrupting mail services on the affected system, but would not cause the operating system itself to fail. Mitigating factors: - Windows XP Home Edition does not provide an SMTP service, and is not affected by the vulnerability. - Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional do provide an SMTP service, but it is not installed by default. - Windows 2000 server products do install the SMTP service by default. However, best practices recommend disabling any unneeded services, and systems on which the SMTP service had been disabled would not be at risk. - Exchange 5.5, even if installed on a Windows 2000 server, is not affected by the vulnerability. - The result of an attack would be limited to disrupting the SMTP service and, depending on the system configuration, potentially IIS and other internet services as well. However, it would not disrupt any other system functions. - The vulnerability would not enable an attacker to gain any privileges on the affected system or to access users' email or data. Vulnerability identifier: CAN-2002-0055 This email is sent to NTBugtraq automatically as a service to my subscribers. Since its programmatically created, and since its been a long time since anyone paid actual money for my programming skills, it may or may not look that good...;-] I can only hope that the information it does contain can be read well enough to serve its purpose. Cheers, Russ - Surgeon General of TruSecure Corporation/NTBugtraq Editor Delivery co-sponsored by Qualys - Make Your Network Secure Go Beyond PARTIAL Security: FREE White Paper Stop hassling with half-baked ENTERPRISE SECURITY. FREE White Paper shows you how to ensure TOTAL security for your Internet perimeter with the most current and most complete PROACTIVE Vulnerability Assessment solution. Get your FREE White Paper now. Click here! https://www.qualys.com/forms/techwhite_86.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: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
I think the two patches are independent of each other. Phil - Phil Randal Network Engineer Herefordshire Council Hereford, UK -Original Message- From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 February 2002 12:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 This one is giving me a headache -- I have Exch 5.5 running on a Win2k server. I'm looking for the fine print that tells me which patch to apply first, or at all, if any, or both. Your mileage may vary. Sigh. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: FW: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 -Original Message- From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-012.asp Malformed Data Transfer Request can Cause Windows SMTP Service to Fail Originally posted: February 27, 2002 Summary Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft(r) Windows(r) 2000 Server and Professional, Windows XP Professional and Exchange Server 2000 Impact of vulnerability:Denial of Service Maximum Severity Rating:Low Recommendation:Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should apply the patch; all others should disable the SMTP service. Affected Software: - Microsoft Windows 2000 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional - Microsoft Exchange 2000 Technical description: An SMTP service installs by default as part of Windows 2000 server products. Exchange 2000, which can only be installed on Windows 2000, uses the native Windows 2000 SMTP service rather than providing its own. In addition, Windows 2000 and Windows XP workstation products provide an SMTP service that is not installed by default. All of these implementations contain a flaw that could enable denial of service attacks to be mounted against the service. The flaw involves how the service handles a particular type of SMTP command used to transfer the data that constitutes an incoming mail. By sending a malformed version of this command, an attacker could cause the SMTP service to fail. This would have the effect of disrupting mail services on the affected system, but would not cause the operating system itself to fail. Mitigating factors: - Windows XP Home Edition does not provide an SMTP service, and is not affected by the vulnerability. - Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional do provide an SMTP service, but it is not installed by default. - Windows 2000 server products do install the SMTP service by default. However, best practices recommend disabling any unneeded services, and systems on which the SMTP service had been disabled would not be at risk. - Exchange 5.5, even if installed on a Windows 2000 server, is not affected by the vulnerability. - The result of an attack would be limited to disrupting the SMTP service and, depending on the system configuration, potentially IIS and other internet services as well. However, it would not disrupt any other system functions. - The vulnerability would not enable an attacker to gain any privileges on the affected system or to access users' email or data. Vulnerability identifier: CAN-2002-0055 This email is sent to NTBugtraq automatically as a service to my subscribers. Since its programmatically created, and since its been a long time since anyone paid actual money for my programming skills, it may or may not look that good...;-] I can only hope that the information it does contain can be read well enough to serve its purpose. Cheers, Russ - Surgeon General of TruSecure Corporation/NTBugtraq Editor oo oo Delivery co-sponsored by Qualys - Make Your Network Secure oo oo Go Beyond PARTIAL Security: FREE White Paper Stop hassling with half-baked ENTERPRISE SECURITY. FREE White Paper shows you how to ensure TOTAL security for your Internet perimeter with the most current and most complete PROACTIVE Vulnerability Assessment solution. Get your FREE White Paper now. Click here! https://www.qualys.com/forms/techwhite_86.html oo oo _ 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: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
Its a good thing I'm still on DOS 4.0 -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: FW: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 -Original Message- From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-012.asp Malformed Data Transfer Request can Cause Windows SMTP Service to Fail Originally posted: February 27, 2002 Summary Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft(r) Windows(r) 2000 Server and Professional, Windows XP Professional and Exchange Server 2000 Impact of vulnerability:Denial of Service Maximum Severity Rating:Low Recommendation:Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should apply the patch; all others should disable the SMTP service. Affected Software: - Microsoft Windows 2000 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional - Microsoft Exchange 2000 Technical description: An SMTP service installs by default as part of Windows 2000 server products. Exchange 2000, which can only be installed on Windows 2000, uses the native Windows 2000 SMTP service rather than providing its own. In addition, Windows 2000 and Windows XP workstation products provide an SMTP service that is not installed by default. All of these implementations contain a flaw that could enable denial of service attacks to be mounted against the service. The flaw involves how the service handles a particular type of SMTP command used to transfer the data that constitutes an incoming mail. By sending a malformed version of this command, an attacker could cause the SMTP service to fail. This would have the effect of disrupting mail services on the affected system, but would not cause the operating system itself to fail. Mitigating factors: - Windows XP Home Edition does not provide an SMTP service, and is not affected by the vulnerability. - Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional do provide an SMTP service, but it is not installed by default. - Windows 2000 server products do install the SMTP service by default. However, best practices recommend disabling any unneeded services, and systems on which the SMTP service had been disabled would not be at risk. - Exchange 5.5, even if installed on a Windows 2000 server, is not affected by the vulnerability. - The result of an attack would be limited to disrupting the SMTP service and, depending on the system configuration, potentially IIS and other internet services as well. However, it would not disrupt any other system functions. - The vulnerability would not enable an attacker to gain any privileges on the affected system or to access users' email or data. Vulnerability identifier: CAN-2002-0055 This email is sent to NTBugtraq automatically as a service to my subscribers. Since its programmatically created, and since its been a long time since anyone paid actual money for my programming skills, it may or may not look that good...;-] I can only hope that the information it does contain can be read well enough to serve its purpose. Cheers, Russ - Surgeon General of TruSecure Corporation/NTBugtraq Editor Delivery co-sponsored by Qualys - Make Your Network Secure Go Beyond PARTIAL Security: FREE White Paper Stop hassling with half-baked ENTERPRISE SECURITY. FREE White Paper shows you how to ensure TOTAL security for your Internet perimeter with the most current and most complete PROACTIVE Vulnerability Assessment solution. Get your FREE White Paper now. Click here! https://www.qualys.com/forms/techwhite_86.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] -- 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. ==
RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
quote Does the vulnerability affect the SMTP service in Exchange Server 5.5? No. Exchange 5.5, even if installed on Windows 2000, uses its own SMTP service, which is not affected by the vulnerability /quote Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 1:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 This one is giving me a headache -- I have Exch 5.5 running on a Win2k server. I'm looking for the fine print that tells me which patch to apply first, or at all, if any, or both. Your mileage may vary. Sigh. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: FW: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 -Original Message- From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-012.asp Malformed Data Transfer Request can Cause Windows SMTP Service to Fail Originally posted: February 27, 2002 Summary Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft(r) Windows(r) 2000 Server and Professional, Windows XP Professional and Exchange Server 2000 Impact of vulnerability:Denial of Service Maximum Severity Rating:Low Recommendation:Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should apply the patch; all others should disable the SMTP service. Affected Software: - Microsoft Windows 2000 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional - Microsoft Exchange 2000 Technical description: An SMTP service installs by default as part of Windows 2000 server products. Exchange 2000, which can only be installed on Windows 2000, uses the native Windows 2000 SMTP service rather than providing its own. In addition, Windows 2000 and Windows XP workstation products provide an SMTP service that is not installed by default. All of these implementations contain a flaw that could enable denial of service attacks to be mounted against the service. The flaw involves how the service handles a particular type of SMTP command used to transfer the data that constitutes an incoming mail. By sending a malformed version of this command, an attacker could cause the SMTP service to fail. This would have the effect of disrupting mail services on the affected system, but would not cause the operating system itself to fail. Mitigating factors: - Windows XP Home Edition does not provide an SMTP service, and is not affected by the vulnerability. - Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional do provide an SMTP service, but it is not installed by default. - Windows 2000 server products do install the SMTP service by default. However, best practices recommend disabling any unneeded services, and systems on which the SMTP service had been disabled would not be at risk. - Exchange 5.5, even if installed on a Windows 2000 server, is not affected by the vulnerability. - The result of an attack would be limited to disrupting the SMTP service and, depending on the system configuration, potentially IIS and other internet services as well. However, it would not disrupt any other system functions. - The vulnerability would not enable an attacker to gain any privileges on the affected system or to access users' email or data. Vulnerability identifier: CAN-2002-0055 This email is sent to NTBugtraq automatically as a service to my subscribers. Since its programmatically created, and since its been a long time since anyone paid actual money for my programming skills, it may or may not look that good...;-] I can only hope that the information it does contain can be read well enough to serve its purpose. Cheers, Russ - Surgeon General of TruSecure Corporation/NTBugtraq Editor oo oo Delivery co-sponsored by Qualys - Make Your Network Secure oo oo Go Beyond PARTIAL Security: FREE White Paper Stop hassling with half-baked ENTERPRISE SECURITY. FREE White Paper shows you how to ensure TOTAL security for your Internet perimeter with the most current and most complete PROACTIVE Vulnerability Assessment solution. Get your FREE White Paper now. Click here! https://www.qualys.com/forms/techwhite_86.html oo oo _ 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: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
Eeek, wasn't that the buggy one? ;-) Phil - Phil Randal Network Engineer Herefordshire Council Hereford, UK -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 February 2002 12:42 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 Its a good thing I'm still on DOS 4.0 -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: FW: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 -Original Message- From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-012.asp Malformed Data Transfer Request can Cause Windows SMTP Service to Fail Originally posted: February 27, 2002 Summary Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft(r) Windows(r) 2000 Server and Professional, Windows XP Professional and Exchange Server 2000 Impact of vulnerability:Denial of Service Maximum Severity Rating:Low Recommendation:Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should apply the patch; all others should disable the SMTP service. Affected Software: - Microsoft Windows 2000 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional - Microsoft Exchange 2000 Technical description: An SMTP service installs by default as part of Windows 2000 server products. Exchange 2000, which can only be installed on Windows 2000, uses the native Windows 2000 SMTP service rather than providing its own. In addition, Windows 2000 and Windows XP workstation products provide an SMTP service that is not installed by default. All of these implementations contain a flaw that could enable denial of service attacks to be mounted against the service. The flaw involves how the service handles a particular type of SMTP command used to transfer the data that constitutes an incoming mail. By sending a malformed version of this command, an attacker could cause the SMTP service to fail. This would have the effect of disrupting mail services on the affected system, but would not cause the operating system itself to fail. Mitigating factors: - Windows XP Home Edition does not provide an SMTP service, and is not affected by the vulnerability. - Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional do provide an SMTP service, but it is not installed by default. - Windows 2000 server products do install the SMTP service by default. However, best practices recommend disabling any unneeded services, and systems on which the SMTP service had been disabled would not be at risk. - Exchange 5.5, even if installed on a Windows 2000 server, is not affected by the vulnerability. - The result of an attack would be limited to disrupting the SMTP service and, depending on the system configuration, potentially IIS and other internet services as well. However, it would not disrupt any other system functions. - The vulnerability would not enable an attacker to gain any privileges on the affected system or to access users' email or data. Vulnerability identifier: CAN-2002-0055 This email is sent to NTBugtraq automatically as a service to my subscribers. Since its programmatically created, and since its been a long time since anyone paid actual money for my programming skills, it may or may not look that good...;-] I can only hope that the information it does contain can be read well enough to serve its purpose. Cheers, Russ - Surgeon General of TruSecure Corporation/NTBugtraq Editor oo oo Delivery co-sponsored by Qualys - Make Your Network Secure oo oo Go Beyond PARTIAL Security: FREE White Paper Stop hassling with half-baked ENTERPRISE SECURITY. FREE White Paper shows you how to ensure TOTAL security for your Internet perimeter with the most current and most complete PROACTIVE Vulnerability Assessment solution. Get your FREE White Paper now. Click here! https://www.qualys.com/forms/techwhite_86.html oo oo _ 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] -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or
RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
bowing to superior intellect My gosh, Siefried! You must be AWAKE ALREADY!!! /bowing and scraping -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 quote Does the vulnerability affect the SMTP service in Exchange Server 5.5? No. Exchange 5.5, even if installed on Windows 2000, uses its own SMTP service, which is not affected by the vulnerability /quote Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 1:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 This one is giving me a headache -- I have Exch 5.5 running on a Win2k server. I'm looking for the fine print that tells me which patch to apply first, or at all, if any, or both. Your mileage may vary. Sigh. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: FW: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 -Original Message- From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-012.asp Malformed Data Transfer Request can Cause Windows SMTP Service to Fail Originally posted: February 27, 2002 Summary Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft(r) Windows(r) 2000 Server and Professional, Windows XP Professional and Exchange Server 2000 Impact of vulnerability:Denial of Service Maximum Severity Rating:Low Recommendation:Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should apply the patch; all others should disable the SMTP service. Affected Software: - Microsoft Windows 2000 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional - Microsoft Exchange 2000 Technical description: An SMTP service installs by default as part of Windows 2000 server products. Exchange 2000, which can only be installed on Windows 2000, uses the native Windows 2000 SMTP service rather than providing its own. In addition, Windows 2000 and Windows XP workstation products provide an SMTP service that is not installed by default. All of these implementations contain a flaw that could enable denial of service attacks to be mounted against the service. The flaw involves how the service handles a particular type of SMTP command used to transfer the data that constitutes an incoming mail. By sending a malformed version of this command, an attacker could cause the SMTP service to fail. This would have the effect of disrupting mail services on the affected system, but would not cause the operating system itself to fail. Mitigating factors: - Windows XP Home Edition does not provide an SMTP service, and is not affected by the vulnerability. - Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional do provide an SMTP service, but it is not installed by default. - Windows 2000 server products do install the SMTP service by default. However, best practices recommend disabling any unneeded services, and systems on which the SMTP service had been disabled would not be at risk. - Exchange 5.5, even if installed on a Windows 2000 server, is not affected by the vulnerability. - The result of an attack would be limited to disrupting the SMTP service and, depending on the system configuration, potentially IIS and other internet services as well. However, it would not disrupt any other system functions. - The vulnerability would not enable an attacker to gain any privileges on the affected system or to access users' email or data. Vulnerability identifier: CAN-2002-0055 This email is sent to NTBugtraq automatically as a service to my subscribers. Since its programmatically created, and since its been a long time since anyone paid actual money for my programming skills, it may or may not look that good...;-] I can only hope that the information it does contain can be read well enough to serve its purpose. Cheers, Russ - Surgeon General of TruSecure Corporation/NTBugtraq Editor oo oo Delivery co-sponsored by Qualys - Make Your Network Secure oo oo Go Beyond PARTIAL Security: FREE White Paper Stop hassling with half-baked ENTERPRISE SECURITY. FREE White Paper shows you how to ensure TOTAL security for your Internet perimeter with the most current and most complete PROACTIVE Vulnerability Assessment solution. Get your FREE White Paper now. Click here! https://www.qualys.com/forms/techwhite_86.html oo oo
RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
You're kidding, eh? It is 2:24 p.m. here and I am working since 5 a.m. this morn. Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 bowing to superior intellect My gosh, Siefried! You must be AWAKE ALREADY!!! /bowing and scraping -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 quote Does the vulnerability affect the SMTP service in Exchange Server 5.5? No. Exchange 5.5, even if installed on Windows 2000, uses its own SMTP service, which is not affected by the vulnerability /quote Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 1:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 This one is giving me a headache -- I have Exch 5.5 running on a Win2k server. I'm looking for the fine print that tells me which patch to apply first, or at all, if any, or both. Your mileage may vary. Sigh. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: FW: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 -Original Message- From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-012.asp Malformed Data Transfer Request can Cause Windows SMTP Service to Fail Originally posted: February 27, 2002 Summary Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft(r) Windows(r) 2000 Server and Professional, Windows XP Professional and Exchange Server 2000 Impact of vulnerability:Denial of Service Maximum Severity Rating:Low Recommendation:Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should apply the patch; all others should disable the SMTP service. Affected Software: - Microsoft Windows 2000 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional - Microsoft Exchange 2000 Technical description: An SMTP service installs by default as part of Windows 2000 server products. Exchange 2000, which can only be installed on Windows 2000, uses the native Windows 2000 SMTP service rather than providing its own. In addition, Windows 2000 and Windows XP workstation products provide an SMTP service that is not installed by default. All of these implementations contain a flaw that could enable denial of service attacks to be mounted against the service. The flaw involves how the service handles a particular type of SMTP command used to transfer the data that constitutes an incoming mail. By sending a malformed version of this command, an attacker could cause the SMTP service to fail. This would have the effect of disrupting mail services on the affected system, but would not cause the operating system itself to fail. Mitigating factors: - Windows XP Home Edition does not provide an SMTP service, and is not affected by the vulnerability. - Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional do provide an SMTP service, but it is not installed by default. - Windows 2000 server products do install the SMTP service by default. However, best practices recommend disabling any unneeded services, and systems on which the SMTP service had been disabled would not be at risk. - Exchange 5.5, even if installed on a Windows 2000 server, is not affected by the vulnerability. - The result of an attack would be limited to disrupting the SMTP service and, depending on the system configuration, potentially IIS and other internet services as well. However, it would not disrupt any other system functions. - The vulnerability would not enable an attacker to gain any privileges on the affected system or to access users' email or data. Vulnerability identifier: CAN-2002-0055 This email is sent to NTBugtraq automatically as a service to my subscribers. Since its programmatically created, and since its been a long time since anyone paid actual money for my programming skills, it may or may not look that good...;-] I can only hope that the information it does contain can be read well enough to serve its purpose. Cheers, Russ - Surgeon General of TruSecure Corporation/NTBugtraq Editor oo oo Delivery co-sponsored by Qualys - Make Your Network Secure oo oo Go Beyond PARTIAL Security: FREE White
RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
Here is how I see it. You cant have both (well you can, but with tweaking) on the same box. You either have the IMS, or the SMTP service. Unless you have a separate IMS server, you should probably use 011. Remember, one specific task in the white paper for installing Exch55 on a W2K server was to remove or not install the SMTP service. Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should apply the Windows patch; all others should disable the SMTP service. Customers using the Exchange Server 5.5 IMC should apply the Exchange Server 5.5 IMC patch. -Original Message- From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 4:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 This one is giving me a headache -- I have Exch 5.5 running on a Win2k server. I'm looking for the fine print that tells me which patch to apply first, or at all, if any, or both. Your mileage may vary. Sigh. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: FW: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 -Original Message- From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-012.asp Malformed Data Transfer Request can Cause Windows SMTP Service to Fail Originally posted: February 27, 2002 Summary Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft(r) Windows(r) 2000 Server and Professional, Windows XP Professional and Exchange Server 2000 Impact of vulnerability:Denial of Service Maximum Severity Rating:Low Recommendation:Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should apply the patch; all others should disable the SMTP service. Affected Software: - Microsoft Windows 2000 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional - Microsoft Exchange 2000 Technical description: An SMTP service installs by default as part of Windows 2000 server products. Exchange 2000, which can only be installed on Windows 2000, uses the native Windows 2000 SMTP service rather than providing its own. In addition, Windows 2000 and Windows XP workstation products provide an SMTP service that is not installed by default. All of these implementations contain a flaw that could enable denial of service attacks to be mounted against the service. The flaw involves how the service handles a particular type of SMTP command used to transfer the data that constitutes an incoming mail. By sending a malformed version of this command, an attacker could cause the SMTP service to fail. This would have the effect of disrupting mail services on the affected system, but would not cause the operating system itself to fail. Mitigating factors: - Windows XP Home Edition does not provide an SMTP service, and is not affected by the vulnerability. - Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional do provide an SMTP service, but it is not installed by default. - Windows 2000 server products do install the SMTP service by default. However, best practices recommend disabling any unneeded services, and systems on which the SMTP service had been disabled would not be at risk. - Exchange 5.5, even if installed on a Windows 2000 server, is not affected by the vulnerability. - The result of an attack would be limited to disrupting the SMTP service and, depending on the system configuration, potentially IIS and other internet services as well. However, it would not disrupt any other system functions. - The vulnerability would not enable an attacker to gain any privileges on the affected system or to access users' email or data. Vulnerability identifier: CAN-2002-0055 This email is sent to NTBugtraq automatically as a service to my subscribers. Since its programmatically created, and since its been a long time since anyone paid actual money for my programming skills, it may or may not look that good...;-] I can only hope that the information it does contain can be read well enough to serve its purpose. Cheers, Russ - Surgeon General of TruSecure Corporation/NTBugtraq Editor Delivery co-sponsored by Qualys - Make Your Network Secure Go Beyond PARTIAL Security: FREE White Paper Stop hassling with half-baked ENTERPRISE SECURITY. FREE White Paper shows you how to ensure TOTAL security for your Internet perimeter with the most current and most complete PROACTIVE Vulnerability Assessment solution. Get your FREE White Paper now. Click here! https://www.qualys.com/forms/techwhite_86.html _ List posting FAQ:
RE: Major Migration Question:
What are the GW and SM users using for clients? -Original Message- From: Williams Scott CTR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Major Migration Question: I've been detailed to an assignment that will involve a migration of 5 different Exchange 5.5 ORG's, 2 Groupwise ORG's, and 1 Sendmail to ONE Exchange 5.5 org. My question is What would be your recommendation on the best migration utility that could do most, if not everything? I've looked at Direct to 1 and E-mail Shuttle (CompuSeven). Anyone have a recommendation? Thanks for your input. _ 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: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
If you look close to both, MS02-011 MS02-012, you'll see that they both point to the same patch for Windows 2000. Only MS02-011 includes a patch for the Exchange 5.5 IMS, not MS02-012. You can have both, Exchange 5.5 IMS Windows 2000 SMTP, on the same machine. All you need to do is either: a) Change the Windows 2000 SMTP port from 25 to whatever you like a) Or disable the Windows 2000 SMTP service I'd recommend always installing the Windows 2000 SMTP service and apply any patches related to it, because a possible inplace upgrade to Exchange 2000 will be easier to accomplish. I'd also recommend to install Windows 2000 IIS and NNTP on such a machine for the same reasons. Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 Here is how I see it. You cant have both (well you can, but with tweaking) on the same box. You either have the IMS, or the SMTP service. Unless you have a separate IMS server, you should probably use 011. Remember, one specific task in the white paper for installing Exch55 on a W2K server was to remove or not install the SMTP service. Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should apply the Windows patch; all others should disable the SMTP service. Customers using the Exchange Server 5.5 IMC should apply the Exchange Server 5.5 IMC patch. -Original Message- From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 4:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 This one is giving me a headache -- I have Exch 5.5 running on a Win2k server. I'm looking for the fine print that tells me which patch to apply first, or at all, if any, or both. Your mileage may vary. Sigh. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: FW: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 -Original Message- From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-012.asp Malformed Data Transfer Request can Cause Windows SMTP Service to Fail Originally posted: February 27, 2002 Summary Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft(r) Windows(r) 2000 Server and Professional, Windows XP Professional and Exchange Server 2000 Impact of vulnerability:Denial of Service Maximum Severity Rating:Low Recommendation:Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should apply the patch; all others should disable the SMTP service. Affected Software: - Microsoft Windows 2000 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional - Microsoft Exchange 2000 Technical description: An SMTP service installs by default as part of Windows 2000 server products. Exchange 2000, which can only be installed on Windows 2000, uses the native Windows 2000 SMTP service rather than providing its own. In addition, Windows 2000 and Windows XP workstation products provide an SMTP service that is not installed by default. All of these implementations contain a flaw that could enable denial of service attacks to be mounted against the service. The flaw involves how the service handles a particular type of SMTP command used to transfer the data that constitutes an incoming mail. By sending a malformed version of this command, an attacker could cause the SMTP service to fail. This would have the effect of disrupting mail services on the affected system, but would not cause the operating system itself to fail. Mitigating factors: - Windows XP Home Edition does not provide an SMTP service, and is not affected by the vulnerability. - Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional do provide an SMTP service, but it is not installed by default. - Windows 2000 server products do install the SMTP service by default. However, best practices recommend disabling any unneeded services, and systems on which the SMTP service had been disabled would not be at risk. - Exchange 5.5, even if installed on a Windows 2000 server, is not affected by the vulnerability. - The result of an attack would be limited to disrupting the SMTP service and, depending on the system configuration, potentially IIS and other internet services as well. However, it would not disrupt any other system functions. - The vulnerability would not enable an attacker to gain any privileges on the affected system or to access users' email or data. Vulnerability identifier: CAN-2002-0055 This email is sent to NTBugtraq automatically as a service to my subscribers. Since its programmatically created, and since its been a long time since anyone
RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
E In place upgrade :) I did say you could have both. With tweaking just as you explained. But in place upgrades don't exist in my world, so that is why I do it the MS way. Just different ways of doing things. Right? -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 If you look close to both, MS02-011 MS02-012, you'll see that they both point to the same patch for Windows 2000. Only MS02-011 includes a patch for the Exchange 5.5 IMS, not MS02-012. You can have both, Exchange 5.5 IMS Windows 2000 SMTP, on the same machine. All you need to do is either: a) Change the Windows 2000 SMTP port from 25 to whatever you like a) Or disable the Windows 2000 SMTP service I'd recommend always installing the Windows 2000 SMTP service and apply any patches related to it, because a possible inplace upgrade to Exchange 2000 will be easier to accomplish. I'd also recommend to install Windows 2000 IIS and NNTP on such a machine for the same reasons. Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 Here is how I see it. You cant have both (well you can, but with tweaking) on the same box. You either have the IMS, or the SMTP service. Unless you have a separate IMS server, you should probably use 011. Remember, one specific task in the white paper for installing Exch55 on a W2K server was to remove or not install the SMTP service. Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should apply the Windows patch; all others should disable the SMTP service. Customers using the Exchange Server 5.5 IMC should apply the Exchange Server 5.5 IMC patch. -Original Message- From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 4:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 This one is giving me a headache -- I have Exch 5.5 running on a Win2k server. I'm looking for the fine print that tells me which patch to apply first, or at all, if any, or both. Your mileage may vary. Sigh. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: FW: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 -Original Message- From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-012.asp Malformed Data Transfer Request can Cause Windows SMTP Service to Fail Originally posted: February 27, 2002 Summary Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft(r) Windows(r) 2000 Server and Professional, Windows XP Professional and Exchange Server 2000 Impact of vulnerability:Denial of Service Maximum Severity Rating:Low Recommendation:Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should apply the patch; all others should disable the SMTP service. Affected Software: - Microsoft Windows 2000 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional - Microsoft Exchange 2000 Technical description: An SMTP service installs by default as part of Windows 2000 server products. Exchange 2000, which can only be installed on Windows 2000, uses the native Windows 2000 SMTP service rather than providing its own. In addition, Windows 2000 and Windows XP workstation products provide an SMTP service that is not installed by default. All of these implementations contain a flaw that could enable denial of service attacks to be mounted against the service. The flaw involves how the service handles a particular type of SMTP command used to transfer the data that constitutes an incoming mail. By sending a malformed version of this command, an attacker could cause the SMTP service to fail. This would have the effect of disrupting mail services on the affected system, but would not cause the operating system itself to fail. Mitigating factors: - Windows XP Home Edition does not provide an SMTP service, and is not affected by the vulnerability. - Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional do provide an SMTP service, but it is not installed by default. - Windows 2000 server products do install the SMTP service by default. However, best practices recommend disabling any unneeded services, and systems on which the SMTP service had been disabled would not be at risk. - Exchange 5.5, even if installed on a Windows 2000 server, is not affected by the vulnerability. - The result of an attack would be limited to disrupting the SMTP service and, depending on the system configuration, potentially IIS
RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
ACK. Problem is that smaller companies sometimes can't afford to buy a new machine. Hence they must do in place. But in my world in place doesn't exist either ;-) Actually, I remember back in Exchange 2000 RC1 times in Feb 2000 I started with each new beta build from scratch: Beta 3 = RC1 = RC2 = RTM. I today celebrated two year Exchange 2000 production usage :-) Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 E In place upgrade :) I did say you could have both. With tweaking just as you explained. But in place upgrades don't exist in my world, so that is why I do it the MS way. Just different ways of doing things. Right? -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 If you look close to both, MS02-011 MS02-012, you'll see that they both point to the same patch for Windows 2000. Only MS02-011 includes a patch for the Exchange 5.5 IMS, not MS02-012. You can have both, Exchange 5.5 IMS Windows 2000 SMTP, on the same machine. All you need to do is either: a) Change the Windows 2000 SMTP port from 25 to whatever you like a) Or disable the Windows 2000 SMTP service I'd recommend always installing the Windows 2000 SMTP service and apply any patches related to it, because a possible inplace upgrade to Exchange 2000 will be easier to accomplish. I'd also recommend to install Windows 2000 IIS and NNTP on such a machine for the same reasons. Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 Here is how I see it. You cant have both (well you can, but with tweaking) on the same box. You either have the IMS, or the SMTP service. Unless you have a separate IMS server, you should probably use 011. Remember, one specific task in the white paper for installing Exch55 on a W2K server was to remove or not install the SMTP service. Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should apply the Windows patch; all others should disable the SMTP service. Customers using the Exchange Server 5.5 IMC should apply the Exchange Server 5.5 IMC patch. -Original Message- From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 4:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 This one is giving me a headache -- I have Exch 5.5 running on a Win2k server. I'm looking for the fine print that tells me which patch to apply first, or at all, if any, or both. Your mileage may vary. Sigh. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: FW: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 -Original Message- From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-012.asp Malformed Data Transfer Request can Cause Windows SMTP Service to Fail Originally posted: February 27, 2002 Summary Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft(r) Windows(r) 2000 Server and Professional, Windows XP Professional and Exchange Server 2000 Impact of vulnerability:Denial of Service Maximum Severity Rating:Low Recommendation:Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should apply the patch; all others should disable the SMTP service. Affected Software: - Microsoft Windows 2000 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional - Microsoft Exchange 2000 Technical description: An SMTP service installs by default as part of Windows 2000 server products. Exchange 2000, which can only be installed on Windows 2000, uses the native Windows 2000 SMTP service rather than providing its own. In addition, Windows 2000 and Windows XP workstation products provide an SMTP service that is not installed by default. All of these implementations contain a flaw that could enable denial of service attacks to be mounted against the service. The flaw involves how the service handles a particular type of SMTP command used to transfer the data that constitutes an incoming mail. By sending a malformed version of this command, an attacker could cause the SMTP service to fail. This would have the effect of disrupting mail services on the affected system, but would not cause the operating system itself to fail. Mitigating
RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
::runs screaming from room:: :) But some of us know you are the man. I wouldn't trust some folks with that! -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 ACK. Problem is that smaller companies sometimes can't afford to buy a new machine. Hence they must do in place. But in my world in place doesn't exist either ;-) Actually, I remember back in Exchange 2000 RC1 times in Feb 2000 I started with each new beta build from scratch: Beta 3 = RC1 = RC2 = RTM. I today celebrated two year Exchange 2000 production usage :-) Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 E In place upgrade :) I did say you could have both. With tweaking just as you explained. But in place upgrades don't exist in my world, so that is why I do it the MS way. Just different ways of doing things. Right? -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 If you look close to both, MS02-011 MS02-012, you'll see that they both point to the same patch for Windows 2000. Only MS02-011 includes a patch for the Exchange 5.5 IMS, not MS02-012. You can have both, Exchange 5.5 IMS Windows 2000 SMTP, on the same machine. All you need to do is either: a) Change the Windows 2000 SMTP port from 25 to whatever you like a) Or disable the Windows 2000 SMTP service I'd recommend always installing the Windows 2000 SMTP service and apply any patches related to it, because a possible inplace upgrade to Exchange 2000 will be easier to accomplish. I'd also recommend to install Windows 2000 IIS and NNTP on such a machine for the same reasons. Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 Here is how I see it. You cant have both (well you can, but with tweaking) on the same box. You either have the IMS, or the SMTP service. Unless you have a separate IMS server, you should probably use 011. Remember, one specific task in the white paper for installing Exch55 on a W2K server was to remove or not install the SMTP service. Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should apply the Windows patch; all others should disable the SMTP service. Customers using the Exchange Server 5.5 IMC should apply the Exchange Server 5.5 IMC patch. -Original Message- From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 4:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 This one is giving me a headache -- I have Exch 5.5 running on a Win2k server. I'm looking for the fine print that tells me which patch to apply first, or at all, if any, or both. Your mileage may vary. Sigh. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: FW: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 -Original Message- From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-012.asp Malformed Data Transfer Request can Cause Windows SMTP Service to Fail Originally posted: February 27, 2002 Summary Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft(r) Windows(r) 2000 Server and Professional, Windows XP Professional and Exchange Server 2000 Impact of vulnerability:Denial of Service Maximum Severity Rating:Low Recommendation:Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should apply the patch; all others should disable the SMTP service. Affected Software: - Microsoft Windows 2000 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional - Microsoft Exchange 2000 Technical description: An SMTP service installs by default as part of Windows 2000 server products. Exchange 2000, which can only be installed on Windows 2000, uses the native Windows 2000 SMTP service rather than providing its own. In addition, Windows 2000 and Windows XP workstation products provide an SMTP service that is not installed by default. All of these implementations contain a flaw that could enable denial of service attacks to be mounted against the service. The flaw involves how the service handles a particular type of SMTP command used
RE: Exchange Journalling
Sounds like a catastrophe waiting to happen. My concern is that if the custom recipient is unavailable where does this Archive folder exist that is suppose to be created exist. I've never heard of anyone journalling to a customer recipient but to a specific mail box on an Exchange server. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Journalling That doesn't sound like a very good idea. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:30 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange Journalling We are using Exchange 5.5 with SP4. We are planning on setting up journalling to a custom recipient. If the custom recipient is available for a time, what happens to the mail that is suppose to be journalled to that recipient? Will it sit on our server in a special directory or will it sit in a que somewhere? I just don't have a clue. Dot Harris Exchange Administrator _ 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]
recipients policy, standard email adress
Hi, E2K, Win2K Some of our email users have more then one email adress, e. g. [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stoewer is the last name, so it should be the default adress when sending email for the company. I set it as default adress in AD to [EMAIL PROTECTED] But Exchange/AD changes the default back to [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I remove the checkbox 'automatic refresh with recipients policy' (sorry, badly translated from german) in the AD-Container for the user it keeps the new default adress. Why does Exchange change the default adress. I could find any policy which means 'use the first smtp-adress as default'. The policy is set to '@cyberconsult.de' as default. Thanx for hints! all the best elm -- Elmer Stöwer CyberConsult - Beratungsgesellschaft für Neue Medien mbH Tel: (030) 39 99 05 -42, Fax: (030) 39 99 05 -67 mailto:[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: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
But it's only THURSDAY! -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 You're kidding, eh? It is 2:24 p.m. here and I am working since 5 a.m. this morn. Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 bowing to superior intellect My gosh, Siefried! You must be AWAKE ALREADY!!! /bowing and scraping -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 quote Does the vulnerability affect the SMTP service in Exchange Server 5.5? No. Exchange 5.5, even if installed on Windows 2000, uses its own SMTP service, which is not affected by the vulnerability /quote Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 1:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 This one is giving me a headache -- I have Exch 5.5 running on a Win2k server. I'm looking for the fine print that tells me which patch to apply first, or at all, if any, or both. Your mileage may vary. Sigh. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: FW: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 -Original Message- From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-012.asp Malformed Data Transfer Request can Cause Windows SMTP Service to Fail Originally posted: February 27, 2002 Summary Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft(r) Windows(r) 2000 Server and Professional, Windows XP Professional and Exchange Server 2000 Impact of vulnerability:Denial of Service Maximum Severity Rating:Low Recommendation:Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should apply the patch; all others should disable the SMTP service. Affected Software: - Microsoft Windows 2000 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional - Microsoft Exchange 2000 Technical description: An SMTP service installs by default as part of Windows 2000 server products. Exchange 2000, which can only be installed on Windows 2000, uses the native Windows 2000 SMTP service rather than providing its own. In addition, Windows 2000 and Windows XP workstation products provide an SMTP service that is not installed by default. All of these implementations contain a flaw that could enable denial of service attacks to be mounted against the service. The flaw involves how the service handles a particular type of SMTP command used to transfer the data that constitutes an incoming mail. By sending a malformed version of this command, an attacker could cause the SMTP service to fail. This would have the effect of disrupting mail services on the affected system, but would not cause the operating system itself to fail. Mitigating factors: - Windows XP Home Edition does not provide an SMTP service, and is not affected by the vulnerability. - Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional do provide an SMTP service, but it is not installed by default. - Windows 2000 server products do install the SMTP service by default. However, best practices recommend disabling any unneeded services, and systems on which the SMTP service had been disabled would not be at risk. - Exchange 5.5, even if installed on a Windows 2000 server, is not affected by the vulnerability. - The result of an attack would be limited to disrupting the SMTP service and, depending on the system configuration, potentially IIS and other internet services as well. However, it would not disrupt any other system functions. - The vulnerability would not enable an attacker to gain any privileges on the affected system or to access users' email or data. Vulnerability identifier: CAN-2002-0055 This email is sent to NTBugtraq automatically as a service to my subscribers. Since its programmatically created, and since its been a long time since anyone paid actual money for my programming skills, it may or may not look that good...;-] I can only hope that the information it does contain can be read well enough to serve its purpose. Cheers, Russ - Surgeon General of TruSecure Corporation/NTBugtraq Editor
RE: bringing it all together
SimpleSync, Compaq LDSU and Microsoft Metadirectory Services can all do it. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: RB [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: bringing it all together Folks, a quick question which probably has many answers. With the build of a new Exchange 2000 organisation if I want to synchronise all the GALS from the MSX 5.5 orgs and add to this the E2k GAL In order to get one version of the GAL across all orgs (5.5 and E2k). Is there a tool that can do this ? Thanks RB _ 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]
Rules limit
Is there one for exchange 2k? I know on 5.5 there is a 32k limit. _ 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: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
Actually, beta 3 was Oct 1999 but I never but /that/ build into production :)). Started with RC1 in my production lab [1]. However, Exchange 2000 runs fine so far. It's already getting boring messing always with this old stuff. Can't wait until the next beta comes out in the future [2]. Siegfried / [1] Production lab because the license agreement didn't allow full production usage ;-) [2] No, I do not have any details when this will happen. So even don't bother to ask ;-) -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 ::runs screaming from room:: :) But some of us know you are the man. I wouldn't trust some folks with that! -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 ACK. Problem is that smaller companies sometimes can't afford to buy a new machine. Hence they must do in place. But in my world in place doesn't exist either ;-) Actually, I remember back in Exchange 2000 RC1 times in Feb 2000 I started with each new beta build from scratch: Beta 3 = RC1 = RC2 = RTM. I today celebrated two year Exchange 2000 production usage :-) Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 E In place upgrade :) I did say you could have both. With tweaking just as you explained. But in place upgrades don't exist in my world, so that is why I do it the MS way. Just different ways of doing things. Right? -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 If you look close to both, MS02-011 MS02-012, you'll see that they both point to the same patch for Windows 2000. Only MS02-011 includes a patch for the Exchange 5.5 IMS, not MS02-012. You can have both, Exchange 5.5 IMS Windows 2000 SMTP, on the same machine. All you need to do is either: a) Change the Windows 2000 SMTP port from 25 to whatever you like a) Or disable the Windows 2000 SMTP service I'd recommend always installing the Windows 2000 SMTP service and apply any patches related to it, because a possible inplace upgrade to Exchange 2000 will be easier to accomplish. I'd also recommend to install Windows 2000 IIS and NNTP on such a machine for the same reasons. Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 Here is how I see it. You cant have both (well you can, but with tweaking) on the same box. You either have the IMS, or the SMTP service. Unless you have a separate IMS server, you should probably use 011. Remember, one specific task in the white paper for installing Exch55 on a W2K server was to remove or not install the SMTP service. Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should apply the Windows patch; all others should disable the SMTP service. Customers using the Exchange Server 5.5 IMC should apply the Exchange Server 5.5 IMC patch. -Original Message- From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 4:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 This one is giving me a headache -- I have Exch 5.5 running on a Win2k server. I'm looking for the fine print that tells me which patch to apply first, or at all, if any, or both. Your mileage may vary. Sigh. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: FW: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 -Original Message- From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-012.asp Malformed Data Transfer Request can Cause Windows SMTP Service to Fail Originally posted: February 27, 2002 Summary Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft(r) Windows(r) 2000 Server and Professional, Windows XP Professional and Exchange Server 2000 Impact of vulnerability:Denial of Service Maximum Severity Rating:Low Recommendation:Customers
RE: Rules limit
Yes, the same Yours, Julian Stone -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 February 2002 14:28 pm To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Rules limit Is there one for exchange 2k? I know on 5.5 there is a 32k limit. _ 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] This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail and you are not a named addressee, please inform the Netstore Technical Support Desk on +44 1344 444342 and then delete the e-mail from your system. If you are not a named addressee you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. Although Netstore routinely screens for viruses, addressees should scan this e-mail and any attachments for viruses. This mail has been processed with the Netstore Content Filtering Service. Visit our website at www.netstore.net _ 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: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
It is? I lost track of that this week. Too much work and less time. Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 But it's only THURSDAY! -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 You're kidding, eh? It is 2:24 p.m. here and I am working since 5 a.m. this morn. Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 bowing to superior intellect My gosh, Siefried! You must be AWAKE ALREADY!!! /bowing and scraping -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 quote Does the vulnerability affect the SMTP service in Exchange Server 5.5? No. Exchange 5.5, even if installed on Windows 2000, uses its own SMTP service, which is not affected by the vulnerability /quote Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 1:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 This one is giving me a headache -- I have Exch 5.5 running on a Win2k server. I'm looking for the fine print that tells me which patch to apply first, or at all, if any, or both. Your mileage may vary. Sigh. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: FW: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 -Original Message- From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-012.asp Malformed Data Transfer Request can Cause Windows SMTP Service to Fail Originally posted: February 27, 2002 Summary Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft(r) Windows(r) 2000 Server and Professional, Windows XP Professional and Exchange Server 2000 Impact of vulnerability:Denial of Service Maximum Severity Rating:Low Recommendation:Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should apply the patch; all others should disable the SMTP service. Affected Software: - Microsoft Windows 2000 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional - Microsoft Exchange 2000 Technical description: An SMTP service installs by default as part of Windows 2000 server products. Exchange 2000, which can only be installed on Windows 2000, uses the native Windows 2000 SMTP service rather than providing its own. In addition, Windows 2000 and Windows XP workstation products provide an SMTP service that is not installed by default. All of these implementations contain a flaw that could enable denial of service attacks to be mounted against the service. The flaw involves how the service handles a particular type of SMTP command used to transfer the data that constitutes an incoming mail. By sending a malformed version of this command, an attacker could cause the SMTP service to fail. This would have the effect of disrupting mail services on the affected system, but would not cause the operating system itself to fail. Mitigating factors: - Windows XP Home Edition does not provide an SMTP service, and is not affected by the vulnerability. - Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional do provide an SMTP service, but it is not installed by default. - Windows 2000 server products do install the SMTP service by default. However, best practices recommend disabling any unneeded services, and systems on which the SMTP service had been disabled would not be at risk. - Exchange 5.5, even if installed on a Windows 2000 server, is not affected by the vulnerability. - The result of an attack would be limited to disrupting the SMTP service and, depending on the system configuration, potentially IIS and other internet services as well. However, it would not disrupt any other system functions. - The vulnerability would not enable an attacker to gain any privileges on the affected system or to access users' email or data. Vulnerability identifier: CAN-2002-0055 This email is sent to NTBugtraq automatically as a
RE: Rules limit
Thank you Sir. -Original Message- From: Julian Stone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 9:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Rules limit Yes, the same Yours, Julian Stone -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 February 2002 14:28 pm To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Rules limit Is there one for exchange 2k? I know on 5.5 there is a 32k limit. _ 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] This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail and you are not a named addressee, please inform the Netstore Technical Support Desk on +44 1344 444342 and then delete the e-mail from your system. If you are not a named addressee you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. Although Netstore routinely screens for viruses, addressees should scan this e-mail and any attachments for viruses. This mail has been processed with the Netstore Content Filtering Service. Visit our website at www.netstore.net _ 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: Rules limit
The explanation is: The limit is imposed by RPC. An RPC packet can only be 32k. Rules are requested through MAPI as a single folder property. There is no facility to stream such a property across RPC packets. Yours, Julian Stone -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 February 2002 14:32 pm To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Rules limit Thank you Sir. -Original Message- From: Julian Stone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 9:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Rules limit Yes, the same Yours, Julian Stone -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 February 2002 14:28 pm To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Rules limit Is there one for exchange 2k? I know on 5.5 there is a 32k limit. _ 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] This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail and you are not a named addressee, please inform the Netstore Technical Support Desk on +44 1344 444342 and then delete the e-mail from your system. If you are not a named addressee you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. Although Netstore routinely screens for viruses, addressees should scan this e-mail and any attachments for viruses. This mail has been processed with the Netstore Content Filtering Service. Visit our website at www.netstore.net _ 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: Accessing OWA via a Proxy/Relay Server
Not exactly. We are not running Exchange on the new proxy server, just win2k, IIS, and ISA. We are able to access OWA on the Exchange server from internal clients with no problems by addressing it directly: http://exchangeservername/exchange; Problem is trying to get to OWA via the new server's IIS from external clients (http://newservername/exchange). We tried Ed's suggestion to login from an external client using domain/account as the ID and still got the 403 unauthorized error. We are using basic (clear text) authentication. From: Tony Hlabse [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Accessing OWA via a Proxy/Relay Server Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:21:44 -0500 So you set it up as a front end/ back end deployment? - Original Message - From: Alex T [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:24 PM Subject: Accessing OWA via a Proxy/Relay Server Apologies in advance if this question is dumb or has already been addressed in the archives or elsewhere--we are still Win2K/Exchange novices and would appreciate some help. We upgraded to Exchange from a UNIX/sendmail system. About 75 mailboxes. Server is running Win2K SP2 and E2K SP2. Clients running Windows98/NT4 with Outlook 2000. We also have a few internal Mac clients that access Exchange via OWA. We now want to open up OWA for off-site users and do so securely. We installed a new separate Win2K SP2 server behind the firewall, opened the firewall to allow Internet traffic to this new server, and enabled IIS on it with virtual folders pointing to the OWA folders on the Exchange Server. This new server is running ISA. When we attempt to connect from the outside using http://newservername/exchange, we are prompted for user/password, but after entering an administrator userID/password (who has an e-mail account), we get 403 Unauthorized Access error. We are able to connect to other non-exchange folders on the Exchange server using this method (e.g. http://newservername/intranet to reach the corporate Intranet site). We have followed the directions in MS articles Q308599, Q290113, Q207655. What are we missing here? _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _ 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] _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _ 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: E2K OWA M: drive
Well, the M: drive was just a symptom. The actual problem was OWA not working unless I added an extra SMTP address to each user, which I didn't really want to do. But anyway, Ed, you pointed me in the right direction. I already had a recipient policy with the desired @kimball.com SMTP address, but it turns out I needed to edit the *default* policy to use the same SMTP address. That (along with a reboot) changed the directory under the M: drive and allowed OWA to start working. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K OWA M: drive I think your problem has nothing to do with the M: drive. It has to do with the fact that you must have a recipient policy that matches the user's SMTP address. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 5:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K OWA M: drive I've got a question about Exchange 2k. On my lab system where I'm testing E2k, I initially could not get OWA to work. I then found that in order for OWA to work, users must have an SMTP address corresponding to the subdirectory name on the E2k server's M: drive. My MSX5.5 org and site are KIIX and EXCHANGEX respectively. After I added an E2K server to the site, the subdirectory under the M: drive is EXCHANGEX.KIIX.COM. No recipients have an SMTP address of @exchangex.kiix.com. OWA won't work until I add an @exchangex.kiix.com address to each recipient. Is there a way to change the subdirectory under the M: drive to correspond with the existing recipients SMTP addresses (@kimball.com)? _ 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]
OL/EUDORa
Hi, I have a user who wants to synchronise his Laptop, on which he uses Eudora, with his desktop (OL97). At the moment, what happens is that eudora wants to load all messages in his mailbox (too much) and then there is still no synchronisation... What can I do? _ 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]
Export Import permissions?
Is there any way to export and import MSX 5.5 object permissions? _ 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: Accessing OWA via a Proxy/Relay Server
How do you have all the settings in the Exchnage page in IIS. Try adding your domain as the default domain, even though it may be set to default. Not exactly. We are not running Exchange on the new proxy server, just win2k, IIS, and ISA. We are able to access OWA on the Exchange server from internal clients with no problems by addressing it directly: http://exchangeservername/exchange; Problem is trying to get to OWA via the new server's IIS from external clients (http://newservername/exchange). We tried Ed's suggestion to login from an external client using domain/account as the ID and still got the 403 unauthorized error. We are using basic (clear text) authentication. From: Tony Hlabse [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Accessing OWA via a Proxy/Relay Server Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:21:44 -0500 So you set it up as a front end/ back end deployment? - Original Message - From: Alex T [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:24 PM Subject: Accessing OWA via a Proxy/Relay Server Apologies in advance if this question is dumb or has already been addressed in the archives or elsewhere--we are still Win2K/Exchange novices and would appreciate some help. We upgraded to Exchange from a UNIX/sendmail system. About 75 mailboxes. Server is running Win2K SP2 and E2K SP2. Clients running Windows98/NT4 with Outlook 2000. We also have a few internal Mac clients that access Exchange via OWA. We now want to open up OWA for off-site users and do so securely. We installed a new separate Win2K SP2 server behind the firewall, opened the firewall to allow Internet traffic to this new server, and enabled IIS on it with virtual folders pointing to the OWA folders on the Exchange Server. This new server is running ISA. When we attempt to connect from the outside using http://newservername/exchange, we are prompted for user/password, but after entering an administrator userID/password (who has an e-mail account), we get 403 Unauthorized Access error. We are able to connect to other non-exchange folders on the Exchange server using this method (e.g. http://newservername/intranet to reach the corporate Intranet site). We have followed the directions in MS articles Q308599, Q290113, Q207655. What are we missing here? _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _ 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] _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _ 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] _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com _ 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: OL/EUDORa
Are you running the import routine for Outlook that gives you this result. Does his current settings on Eudora keep a copy of emails on the server? If not make it so. This way he can use Outllok then. Best is to get him off of Eudora. It's cute but isn't made to integrate with all of the MS features. ei GAL etc. Hi, I have a user who wants to synchronise his Laptop, on which he uses Eudora, with his desktop (OL97). At the moment, what happens is that eudora wants to load all messages in his mailbox (too much) and then there is still no synchronisation... What can I do? _ 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] _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _ 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: Export Import permissions?
What are you trying to accomplish? Is there any way to export and import MSX 5.5 object permissions? _ 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] _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com _ 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: OL/EUDORa
the guy swears by Eudora and is going on about the fact that in Eudora you can include the original message in the out of office function... I'm thinking about creating a second mailbox and forward new incoming mail to that new mailbox and keep a copy on the old one, in that way he can configure his eudora to synchronise only with mailbox #2, and he can keep his regular mailbox on his desktop using OL. Any holes in there or maybe better solutions? -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 February, 2002 3:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: OL/EUDORa Are you running the import routine for Outlook that gives you this result. Does his current settings on Eudora keep a copy of emails on the server? If not make it so. This way he can use Outllok then. Best is to get him off of Eudora. It's cute but isn't made to integrate with all of the MS features. ei GAL etc. Hi, I have a user who wants to synchronise his Laptop, on which he uses Eudora, with his desktop (OL97). At the moment, what happens is that eudora wants to load all messages in his mailbox (too much) and then there is still no synchronisation... What can I do? _ 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] _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _ 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: recipients policy, standard email adress
Make sure you have the correct email domain set as the primary in your email addresses page of the default recipient policy. Hi, E2K, Win2K Some of our email users have more then one email adress, e. g. [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stoewer is the last name, so it should be the default adress when sending email for the company. I set it as default adress in AD to [EMAIL PROTECTED] But Exchange/AD changes the default back to [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I remove the checkbox 'automatic refresh with recipients policy' (sorry, badly translated from german) in the AD-Container for the user it keeps the new default adress. Why does Exchange change the default adress. I could find any policy which means 'use the first smtp-adress as default'. The policy is set to '@cyberconsult.de' as default. Thanx for hints! all the best elm -- Elmer Stöwer CyberConsult - Beratungsgesellschaft für Neue Medien mbH Tel: (030) 39 99 05 -42, Fax: (030) 39 99 05 -67 mailto:[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] _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com _ 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: Export Import permissions?
In preparation for moving to E2K, we want to change all of our non-human objects (shared mailboxes, conf rooms, etc.) so that they have their own NT user ID. I can export, create the NT4 user ID and re-import with the newly created ID as the primary windows account, BUT I then need some way to give the previous primary NT account (the human responsible) permissions. Near as I can tell export/import doesn't do permissions, at least I couldn't find a field for it in the header.exe tool. I may have to try LDAP... -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Export Import permissions? What are you trying to accomplish? Is there any way to export and import MSX 5.5 object permissions? _ 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] _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com _ 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]
XP on 2000 Network
Hello everybody-- We have a native Windows 2000 (SP2) network, with an Exchange 2000 (SP2) server. When they connect to OWA from home, using IE 5.5 or 6 on a Windows 98 or 2000 box, they get three boxes to fill in: Username, Password, Domain. I have two users who have Windows XP computers at home, and when they connect to our OWA site, using IE 6, they only get two boxes to fill in: Username and Password. No Domain. So they can't get in. Is there a remedy or workaround so it will work for them? Thanks, Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Robert Moore, MCSE Network Administrator The Agnes Irwin School [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: XP on 2000 Network
format is: domain\username password -Original Message- From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 February 2002 15:28 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: XP on 2000 Network Hello everybody-- We have a native Windows 2000 (SP2) network, with an Exchange 2000 (SP2) server. When they connect to OWA from home, using IE 5.5 or 6 on a Windows 98 or 2000 box, they get three boxes to fill in: Username, Password, Domain. I have two users who have Windows XP computers at home, and when they connect to our OWA site, using IE 6, they only get two boxes to fill in: Username and Password. No Domain. So they can't get in. Is there a remedy or workaround so it will work for them? Thanks, Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Robert Moore, MCSE Network Administrator The Agnes Irwin School [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: XP on 2000 Network
I think it might be a XP-Home edition has no domain authentication issue. Check TechNet? Regards, Joe Bauschek - Network Engineer Medical Information Management Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 9:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: XP on 2000 Network Hello everybody-- We have a native Windows 2000 (SP2) network, with an Exchange 2000 (SP2) server. When they connect to OWA from home, using IE 5.5 or 6 on a Windows 98 or 2000 box, they get three boxes to fill in: Username, Password, Domain. I have two users who have Windows XP computers at home, and when they connect to our OWA site, using IE 6, they only get two boxes to fill in: Username and Password. No Domain. So they can't get in. Is there a remedy or workaround so it will work for them? Thanks, Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Robert Moore, MCSE Network Administrator The Agnes Irwin School [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: XP on 2000 Network
username@domain password -Original Message- From: HANNA, Keith (TSL Shirley) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: XP on 2000 Network format is: domain\username password -Original Message- From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 February 2002 15:28 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: XP on 2000 Network Hello everybody-- We have a native Windows 2000 (SP2) network, with an Exchange 2000 (SP2) server. When they connect to OWA from home, using IE 5.5 or 6 on a Windows 98 or 2000 box, they get three boxes to fill in: Username, Password, Domain. I have two users who have Windows XP computers at home, and when they connect to our OWA site, using IE 6, they only get two boxes to fill in: Username and Password. No Domain. So they can't get in. Is there a remedy or workaround so it will work for them? Thanks, Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Robert Moore, MCSE Network Administrator The Agnes Irwin School [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: XP on 2000 Network
Thanks. I'll have my users try that. Rob -Original Message- From: HANNA, Keith (TSL Shirley) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: XP on 2000 Network format is: domain\username password -Original Message- From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 February 2002 15:28 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: XP on 2000 Network Hello everybody-- We have a native Windows 2000 (SP2) network, with an Exchange 2000 (SP2) server. When they connect to OWA from home, using IE 5.5 or 6 on a Windows 98 or 2000 box, they get three boxes to fill in: Username, Password, Domain. I have two users who have Windows XP computers at home, and when they connect to our OWA site, using IE 6, they only get two boxes to fill in: Username and Password. No Domain. So they can't get in. Is there a remedy or workaround so it will work for them? Thanks, Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Robert Moore, MCSE Network Administrator The Agnes Irwin School [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: XP on 2000 Network
In IIS on the OWA server, you could also set the default domain. Then everyone would just get a Username and a password box. -Original Message- From: HANNA, Keith (TSL Shirley) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 7:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: XP on 2000 Network format is: domain\username password -Original Message- From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 February 2002 15:28 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: XP on 2000 Network Hello everybody-- We have a native Windows 2000 (SP2) network, with an Exchange 2000 (SP2) server. When they connect to OWA from home, using IE 5.5 or 6 on a Windows 98 or 2000 box, they get three boxes to fill in: Username, Password, Domain. I have two users who have Windows XP computers at home, and when they connect to our OWA site, using IE 6, they only get two boxes to fill in: Username and Password. No Domain. So they can't get in. Is there a remedy or workaround so it will work for them? Thanks, Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Robert Moore, MCSE Network Administrator The Agnes Irwin School [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: XP on 2000 Network
That sounds like a good way to go. How do I do that? -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: XP on 2000 Network In IIS on the OWA server, you could also set the default domain. Then everyone would just get a Username and a password box. -Original Message- From: HANNA, Keith (TSL Shirley) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 7:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: XP on 2000 Network format is: domain\username password -Original Message- From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 February 2002 15:28 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: XP on 2000 Network Hello everybody-- We have a native Windows 2000 (SP2) network, with an Exchange 2000 (SP2) server. When they connect to OWA from home, using IE 5.5 or 6 on a Windows 98 or 2000 box, they get three boxes to fill in: Username, Password, Domain. I have two users who have Windows XP computers at home, and when they connect to our OWA site, using IE 6, they only get two boxes to fill in: Username and Password. No Domain. So they can't get in. Is there a remedy or workaround so it will work for them? Thanks, Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Robert Moore, MCSE Network Administrator The Agnes Irwin School [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: recipients policy, standard email adress
Why don't you just make new default recipient policies as needed? i.e. It looks like your default is @cyberconsult.de. That would give [EMAIL PROTECTED] Make a new one (which would automatically take precedence for all users that the query captures) that lists first [EMAIL PROTECTED] and @cyberconsult.de. Then they get both of them, and the %s (surname) one comes first. Otherwise you'll be editing email addresses for the rest of eternity, rather than letting Exchange do it for you. -Original Message- From: Elmer Stöwer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Thursday, February 28, 2002 08:10 AM Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List Conversation: recipients policy, standard email adress Subject: recipients policy, standard email adress Hi, E2K, Win2K Some of our email users have more then one email adress, e. g. [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stoewer is the last name, so it should be the default adress when sending email for the company. I set it as default adress in AD to [EMAIL PROTECTED] But Exchange/AD changes the default back to [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I remove the checkbox 'automatic refresh with recipients policy' (sorry, badly translated from german) in the AD-Container for the user it keeps the new default adress. Why does Exchange change the default adress. I could find any policy which means 'use the first smtp-adress as default'. The policy is set to '@cyberconsult.de' as default. Thanx for hints! all the best elm -- Elmer Stöwer CyberConsult - Beratungsgesellschaft für Neue Medien mbH Tel: (030) 39 99 05 -42, Fax: (030) 39 99 05 -67 mailto:[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: E2K OWA M: drive
That's not how it works. You're still sorta confused. Your users need an SMTP address that matches that specified in the default recipient policy. Period. M: drive will also reflect the changes, but it's not the lead indicator. -Original Message- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Thursday, February 28, 2002 08:38 AM Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List Conversation: E2K OWA M: drive Subject: RE: E2K OWA M: drive Well, the M: drive was just a symptom. The actual problem was OWA not working unless I added an extra SMTP address to each user, which I didn't really want to do. But anyway, Ed, you pointed me in the right direction. I already had a recipient policy with the desired @kimball.com SMTP address, but it turns out I needed to edit the *default* policy to use the same SMTP address. That (along with a reboot) changed the directory under the M: drive and allowed OWA to start working. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K OWA M: drive I think your problem has nothing to do with the M: drive. It has to do with the fact that you must have a recipient policy that matches the user's SMTP address. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 5:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K OWA M: drive I've got a question about Exchange 2k. On my lab system where I'm testing E2k, I initially could not get OWA to work. I then found that in order for OWA to work, users must have an SMTP address corresponding to the subdirectory name on the E2k server's M: drive. My MSX5.5 org and site are KIIX and EXCHANGEX respectively. After I added an E2K server to the site, the subdirectory under the M: drive is EXCHANGEX.KIIX.COM. No recipients have an SMTP address of @exchangex.kiix.com. OWA won't work until I add an @exchangex.kiix.com address to each recipient. Is there a way to change the subdirectory under the M: drive to correspond with the existing recipients SMTP addresses (@kimball.com)? _ 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: Export Import permissions?
You can script that. It isn't easy, though. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 6:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Export Import permissions? Is there any way to export and import MSX 5.5 object permissions? _ 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: Accessing OWA via a Proxy/Relay Server
Have you followed the steps in the TechNet articles on fronting Exchange with Proxy? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Alex T Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 6:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Accessing OWA via a Proxy/Relay Server Not exactly. We are not running Exchange on the new proxy server, just win2k, IIS, and ISA. We are able to access OWA on the Exchange server from internal clients with no problems by addressing it directly: http://exchangeservername/exchange; Problem is trying to get to OWA via the new server's IIS from external clients (http://newservername/exchange). We tried Ed's suggestion to login from an external client using domain/account as the ID and still got the 403 unauthorized error. We are using basic (clear text) authentication. From: Tony Hlabse [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Accessing OWA via a Proxy/Relay Server Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:21:44 -0500 So you set it up as a front end/ back end deployment? - Original Message - From: Alex T [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:24 PM Subject: Accessing OWA via a Proxy/Relay Server Apologies in advance if this question is dumb or has already been addressed in the archives or elsewhere--we are still Win2K/Exchange novices and would appreciate some help. We upgraded to Exchange from a UNIX/sendmail system. About 75 mailboxes. Server is running Win2K SP2 and E2K SP2. Clients running Windows98/NT4 with Outlook 2000. We also have a few internal Mac clients that access Exchange via OWA. We now want to open up OWA for off-site users and do so securely. We installed a new separate Win2K SP2 server behind the firewall, opened the firewall to allow Internet traffic to this new server, and enabled IIS on it with virtual folders pointing to the OWA folders on the Exchange Server. This new server is running ISA. When we attempt to connect from the outside using http://newservername/exchange, we are prompted for user/password, but after entering an administrator userID/password (who has an e-mail account), we get 403 Unauthorized Access error. We are able to connect to other non-exchange folders on the Exchange server using this method (e.g. http://newservername/intranet to reach the corporate Intranet site). We have followed the directions in MS articles Q308599, Q290113, Q207655. What are we missing here? _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _ 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] _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _ 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: Exchange Migration Question
Avaliable options I'm aware of: 1. Compaq LDAP Directory Synchronization Utility (LDSU) 2. Microsoft Metadirectory Server 3. SimpleSync 4. MS Mail Dirsync (unsupported by Microsoft, but is supposed to work) 5. InterOrg tool 6. Your own code Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Williams Scott CTR Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 7:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question Yeah, unfortunately we have 15 months to complete the project. Currently we are using a PERL script to do GAL consolidation across the 3 platforms, and its very unstable. We did purchase NETIQ's monitoring software (APP Manager). Would it be recommended to go with a third party solution for migration purposes or use Microsoft's provided tools? ($$ is not a factor) -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question http://www.netiq.com/products/migrate/default.asp http://www.compusven.com/ I'd do it as a stepping stone project versus all at once though. :) William -Original Message- From: Williams Scott CTR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange Migration Question I've been detailed to an assignment that will involve a migration of 5 different Exchange 5.5 ORG's, 2 Groupwise ORG's, and 1 Sendmail to ONE Exchange 5.5 org. My question is What would be your recommendation on the best migration utility that could do most, if not everything? I've looked at Direct to 1 and E-mail Shuttle (CompuSeven). Anyone have a recommendation? Thanks for your input. _ 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: Exchange Journalling
Also seems like it could dramatically slow, if not stop, performance. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 6:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Journalling Sounds like a catastrophe waiting to happen. My concern is that if the custom recipient is unavailable where does this Archive folder exist that is suppose to be created exist. I've never heard of anyone journalling to a customer recipient but to a specific mail box on an Exchange server. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Journalling That doesn't sound like a very good idea. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:30 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange Journalling We are using Exchange 5.5 with SP4. We are planning on setting up journalling to a custom recipient. If the custom recipient is available for a time, what happens to the mail that is suppose to be journalled to that recipient? Will it sit on our server in a special directory or will it sit in a que somewhere? I just don't have a clue. Dot Harris Exchange Administrator _ 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: recipients policy, standard email adress
You haven't looked hard enough. Look in the Recipient Policies container. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Elmer Stöwer Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 6:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: recipients policy, standard email adress Hi, E2K, Win2K Some of our email users have more then one email adress, e. g. [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stoewer is the last name, so it should be the default adress when sending email for the company. I set it as default adress in AD to [EMAIL PROTECTED] But Exchange/AD changes the default back to [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I remove the checkbox 'automatic refresh with recipients policy' (sorry, badly translated from german) in the AD-Container for the user it keeps the new default adress. Why does Exchange change the default adress. I could find any policy which means 'use the first smtp-adress as default'. The policy is set to '@cyberconsult.de' as default. Thanx for hints! all the best elm -- Elmer Stöwer CyberConsult - Beratungsgesellschaft für Neue Medien mbH Tel: (030) 39 99 05 -42, Fax: (030) 39 99 05 -67 mailto:[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: OL/EUDORa
The hole is that it isn't synchronization. It's simply downloading his mail to his offline client while it stays on the server. Changes he makes to the downloaded mail on Eudora, or mail he sends from Eudora, will not be in his mailbox unless he copies himself, and even then won't be in the same places. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Kim Schotanus Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 7:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: OL/EUDORa the guy swears by Eudora and is going on about the fact that in Eudora you can include the original message in the out of office function... I'm thinking about creating a second mailbox and forward new incoming mail to that new mailbox and keep a copy on the old one, in that way he can configure his eudora to synchronise only with mailbox #2, and he can keep his regular mailbox on his desktop using OL. Any holes in there or maybe better solutions? -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 February, 2002 3:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: OL/EUDORa Are you running the import routine for Outlook that gives you this result. Does his current settings on Eudora keep a copy of emails on the server? If not make it so. This way he can use Outllok then. Best is to get him off of Eudora. It's cute but isn't made to integrate with all of the MS features. ei GAL etc. Hi, I have a user who wants to synchronise his Laptop, on which he uses Eudora, with his desktop (OL97). At the moment, what happens is that eudora wants to load all messages in his mailbox (too much) and then there is still no synchronisation... What can I do? _ 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] _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _ 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: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
Seeing as he lives in Germany, he has the benefit of a few time zones.. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:20 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 bowing to superior intellect My gosh, Siefried! You must be AWAKE ALREADY!!! /bowing and scraping -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 quote Does the vulnerability affect the SMTP service in Exchange Server 5.5? No. Exchange 5.5, even if installed on Windows 2000, uses its own SMTP service, which is not affected by the vulnerability /quote Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 1:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 This one is giving me a headache -- I have Exch 5.5 running on a Win2k server. I'm looking for the fine print that tells me which patch to apply first, or at all, if any, or both. Your mileage may vary. Sigh. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: FW: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 -Original Message- From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-012.asp Malformed Data Transfer Request can Cause Windows SMTP Service to Fail Originally posted: February 27, 2002 Summary Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft(r) Windows(r) 2000 Server and Professional, Windows XP Professional and Exchange Server 2000 Impact of vulnerability:Denial of Service Maximum Severity Rating:Low Recommendation:Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should apply the patch; all others should disable the SMTP service. Affected Software: - Microsoft Windows 2000 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional - Microsoft Exchange 2000 Technical description: An SMTP service installs by default as part of Windows 2000 server products. Exchange 2000, which can only be installed on Windows 2000, uses the native Windows 2000 SMTP service rather than providing its own. In addition, Windows 2000 and Windows XP workstation products provide an SMTP service that is not installed by default. All of these implementations contain a flaw that could enable denial of service attacks to be mounted against the service. The flaw involves how the service handles a particular type of SMTP command used to transfer the data that constitutes an incoming mail. By sending a malformed version of this command, an attacker could cause the SMTP service to fail. This would have the effect of disrupting mail services on the affected system, but would not cause the operating system itself to fail. Mitigating factors: - Windows XP Home Edition does not provide an SMTP service, and is not affected by the vulnerability. - Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional do provide an SMTP service, but it is not installed by default. - Windows 2000 server products do install the SMTP service by default. However, best practices recommend disabling any unneeded services, and systems on which the SMTP service had been disabled would not be at risk. - Exchange 5.5, even if installed on a Windows 2000 server, is not affected by the vulnerability. - The result of an attack would be limited to disrupting the SMTP service and, depending on the system configuration, potentially IIS and other internet services as well. However, it would not disrupt any other system functions. - The vulnerability would not enable an attacker to gain any privileges on the affected system or to access users' email or data. Vulnerability identifier: CAN-2002-0055 This email is sent to NTBugtraq automatically as a service to my subscribers. Since its programmatically created, and since its been a long time since anyone paid actual money for my programming skills, it may or may not look that good...;-] I can only hope that the information it does contain can be read well enough to serve its purpose. Cheers, Russ - Surgeon General of TruSecure Corporation/NTBugtraq Editor oo oo oo oo
RE: Exchange Migration Question
Todd, this only from 5.5 to 2k. We will be consolidating all 5.5 org's to 1 5.5 ORG. Also 3 Groupwise 5.5 and 1 SendMail. Any utils exist that can do all three? -Original Message- From: ToddMicro, Inc. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question Try: http://www.aelita.com/products/EMW.htm Todd Fleenor HCA Healthcare Nashville, TN -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Williams Scott CTR Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange Migration Question I've been detailed to an assignment that will involve a migration of 5 different Exchange 5.5 ORG's, 2 Groupwise ORG's, and 1 Sendmail to ONE Exchange 5.5 org. My question is What would be your recommendation on the best migration utility that could do most, if not everything? I've looked at Direct to 1 and E-mail Shuttle (CompuSeven). Anyone have a recommendation? Thanks for your input. _ 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: Major Migration Question:
Both Outlook or Exchange client. All SendMail data is in .PST's on the workstations (dumb!), all GW is Server based. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Major Migration Question: What are the GW and SM users using for clients? -Original Message- From: Williams Scott CTR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Major Migration Question: I've been detailed to an assignment that will involve a migration of 5 different Exchange 5.5 ORG's, 2 Groupwise ORG's, and 1 Sendmail to ONE Exchange 5.5 org. My question is What would be your recommendation on the best migration utility that could do most, if not everything? I've looked at Direct to 1 and E-mail Shuttle (CompuSeven). Anyone have a recommendation? Thanks for your input. _ 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: Export Import permissions?
I'm not sure what you are asking for. We have many mailboxes (400 or so) for things like shared mailboxes, rooms, projectors, etc. Most of these have a human owner's NT account plugged into the primary NT account. Many have additional permissions assigned. Since this don't fly in E2K, we want to create unique NT user IDs for these mailboxes and make the new ID the primary NT account for the mailbox. I then need a way to give the original account permission on the mailbox. We use no public folders (should we is another question, but the fact is we don't currently). -Original Message- From: Waters, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Export Import permissions? Since I am the if its not a human, its a PF type of admin. Can I ask why you are doing this? -Original Message- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Export Import permissions? In preparation for moving to E2K, we want to change all of our non-human objects (shared mailboxes, conf rooms, etc.) so that they have their own NT user ID. I can export, create the NT4 user ID and re-import with the newly created ID as the primary windows account, BUT I then need some way to give the previous primary NT account (the human responsible) permissions. Near as I can tell export/import doesn't do permissions, at least I couldn't find a field for it in the header.exe tool. I may have to try LDAP... -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Export Import permissions? What are you trying to accomplish? Is there any way to export and import MSX 5.5 object permissions? _ 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] _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com _ 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: Exchange Migration Question
Ed, Aren't those only MetaDirectory consolidation tools? We are looking for a migration tool that will migrate ALL date (ie: Public Folders, All Exchange data, All Groupwise mail/data, and SendMail mail. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question Avaliable options I'm aware of: 1. Compaq LDAP Directory Synchronization Utility (LDSU) 2. Microsoft Metadirectory Server 3. SimpleSync 4. MS Mail Dirsync (unsupported by Microsoft, but is supposed to work) 5. InterOrg tool 6. Your own code Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Williams Scott CTR Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 7:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question Yeah, unfortunately we have 15 months to complete the project. Currently we are using a PERL script to do GAL consolidation across the 3 platforms, and its very unstable. We did purchase NETIQ's monitoring software (APP Manager). Would it be recommended to go with a third party solution for migration purposes or use Microsoft's provided tools? ($$ is not a factor) -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question http://www.netiq.com/products/migrate/default.asp http://www.compusven.com/ I'd do it as a stepping stone project versus all at once though. :) William -Original Message- From: Williams Scott CTR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange Migration Question I've been detailed to an assignment that will involve a migration of 5 different Exchange 5.5 ORG's, 2 Groupwise ORG's, and 1 Sendmail to ONE Exchange 5.5 org. My question is What would be your recommendation on the best migration utility that could do most, if not everything? I've looked at Direct to 1 and E-mail Shuttle (CompuSeven). Anyone have a recommendation? Thanks for your input. _ 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: Exchange Migration Question
Try Easy Migrator from Wingra Technologies http://www.wingra.com Yours, Julian Stone -Original Message- From: Williams Scott CTR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 February 2002 15:59 pm To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question Todd, this only from 5.5 to 2k. We will be consolidating all 5.5 org's to 1 5.5 ORG. Also 3 Groupwise 5.5 and 1 SendMail. Any utils exist that can do all three? -Original Message- From: ToddMicro, Inc. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question Try: http://www.aelita.com/products/EMW.htm Todd Fleenor HCA Healthcare Nashville, TN -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Williams Scott CTR Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange Migration Question I've been detailed to an assignment that will involve a migration of 5 different Exchange 5.5 ORG's, 2 Groupwise ORG's, and 1 Sendmail to ONE Exchange 5.5 org. My question is What would be your recommendation on the best migration utility that could do most, if not everything? I've looked at Direct to 1 and E-mail Shuttle (CompuSeven). Anyone have a recommendation? Thanks for your input. _ 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] This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail and you are not a named addressee, please inform the Netstore Technical Support Desk on +44 1344 444342 and then delete the e-mail from your system. If you are not a named addressee you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. Although Netstore routinely screens for viruses, addressees should scan this e-mail and any attachments for viruses. This mail has been processed with the Netstore Content Filtering Service. Visit our website at www.netstore.net _ 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: OL/EUDORa
IMAP -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: OL/EUDORa the guy swears by Eudora and is going on about the fact that in Eudora you can include the original message in the out of office function... I'm thinking about creating a second mailbox and forward new incoming mail to that new mailbox and keep a copy on the old one, in that way he can configure his eudora to synchronise only with mailbox #2, and he can keep his regular mailbox on his desktop using OL. Any holes in there or maybe better solutions? -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 February, 2002 3:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: OL/EUDORa Are you running the import routine for Outlook that gives you this result. Does his current settings on Eudora keep a copy of emails on the server? If not make it so. This way he can use Outllok then. Best is to get him off of Eudora. It's cute but isn't made to integrate with all of the MS features. ei GAL etc. Hi, I have a user who wants to synchronise his Laptop, on which he uses Eudora, with his desktop (OL97). At the moment, what happens is that eudora wants to load all messages in his mailbox (too much) and then there is still no synchronisation... What can I do? _ 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] _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _ 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: Exchange Migration Question
Wingra will do all that and a little more. You will want to call them to get all the gory details. The site isn't as detailed as it should be. Joel -Original Message- From: Williams Scott CTR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question Ed, Aren't those only MetaDirectory consolidation tools? We are looking for a migration tool that will migrate ALL date (ie: Public Folders, All Exchange data, All Groupwise mail/data, and SendMail mail. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question Avaliable options I'm aware of: 1. Compaq LDAP Directory Synchronization Utility (LDSU) 2. Microsoft Metadirectory Server 3. SimpleSync 4. MS Mail Dirsync (unsupported by Microsoft, but is supposed to work) 5. InterOrg tool 6. Your own code Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Williams Scott CTR Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 7:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question Yeah, unfortunately we have 15 months to complete the project. Currently we are using a PERL script to do GAL consolidation across the 3 platforms, and its very unstable. We did purchase NETIQ's monitoring software (APP Manager). Would it be recommended to go with a third party solution for migration purposes or use Microsoft's provided tools? ($$ is not a factor) -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question http://www.netiq.com/products/migrate/default.asp http://www.compusven.com/ I'd do it as a stepping stone project versus all at once though. :) William -Original Message- From: Williams Scott CTR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange Migration Question I've been detailed to an assignment that will involve a migration of 5 different Exchange 5.5 ORG's, 2 Groupwise ORG's, and 1 Sendmail to ONE Exchange 5.5 org. My question is What would be your recommendation on the best migration utility that could do most, if not everything? I've looked at Direct to 1 and E-mail Shuttle (CompuSeven). Anyone have a recommendation? Thanks for your input. _ 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] _ 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: Exchange Migration Question
I'm stoked! I think this may be the solution to my migraine headaches! -Original Message- From: Stidley, Joel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question Wingra will do all that and a little more. You will want to call them to get all the gory details. The site isn't as detailed as it should be. Joel -Original Message- From: Williams Scott CTR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question Ed, Aren't those only MetaDirectory consolidation tools? We are looking for a migration tool that will migrate ALL date (ie: Public Folders, All Exchange data, All Groupwise mail/data, and SendMail mail. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question Avaliable options I'm aware of: 1. Compaq LDAP Directory Synchronization Utility (LDSU) 2. Microsoft Metadirectory Server 3. SimpleSync 4. MS Mail Dirsync (unsupported by Microsoft, but is supposed to work) 5. InterOrg tool 6. Your own code Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Williams Scott CTR Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 7:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question Yeah, unfortunately we have 15 months to complete the project. Currently we are using a PERL script to do GAL consolidation across the 3 platforms, and its very unstable. We did purchase NETIQ's monitoring software (APP Manager). Would it be recommended to go with a third party solution for migration purposes or use Microsoft's provided tools? ($$ is not a factor) -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question http://www.netiq.com/products/migrate/default.asp http://www.compusven.com/ I'd do it as a stepping stone project versus all at once though. :) William -Original Message- From: Williams Scott CTR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange Migration Question I've been detailed to an assignment that will involve a migration of 5 different Exchange 5.5 ORG's, 2 Groupwise ORG's, and 1 Sendmail to ONE Exchange 5.5 org. My question is What would be your recommendation on the best migration utility that could do most, if not everything? I've looked at Direct to 1 and E-mail Shuttle (CompuSeven). Anyone have a recommendation? Thanks for your input. _ 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] _ 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]
Cooking.com Replies?
Is anybody else getting automated replies from Cooking.com everytime they post to the Exchange list? Also, on my previous thread, Martin Blackstone said, In IIS on the OWA server, you could also set the default domain. Then everyone would just get a Username and a password box. I went to the KB and found an article that seemed to tell me how to do this. But to do it you have to enable Basic Authentication. I don't want to do that. Is there another way? Rob _ 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: Export Import permissions?
I have found it better to manage these as PF's over a mailbox. It removes the need to have a dedicated account for each resource, and rights are easy to setup. Jeff -Original Message- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Export Import permissions? I'm not sure what you are asking for. We have many mailboxes (400 or so) for things like shared mailboxes, rooms, projectors, etc. Most of these have a human owner's NT account plugged into the primary NT account. Many have additional permissions assigned. Since this don't fly in E2K, we want to create unique NT user IDs for these mailboxes and make the new ID the primary NT account for the mailbox. I then need a way to give the original account permission on the mailbox. We use no public folders (should we is another question, but the fact is we don't currently). -Original Message- From: Waters, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Export Import permissions? Since I am the if its not a human, its a PF type of admin. Can I ask why you are doing this? -Original Message- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Export Import permissions? In preparation for moving to E2K, we want to change all of our non-human objects (shared mailboxes, conf rooms, etc.) so that they have their own NT user ID. I can export, create the NT4 user ID and re-import with the newly created ID as the primary windows account, BUT I then need some way to give the previous primary NT account (the human responsible) permissions. Near as I can tell export/import doesn't do permissions, at least I couldn't find a field for it in the header.exe tool. I may have to try LDAP... -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Export Import permissions? What are you trying to accomplish? Is there any way to export and import MSX 5.5 object permissions? _ 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] _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com _ 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: E2K OWA M: drive
I don't doubt I'm confused, but didn't you just say the same thing I said? It boils down to this: the *default* recipient policy must match one of the SMTP addresses of the users. If it don't, OWA won't work. You can add all the recipient policies you like, but it's the default policy that counts for OWA. Usually, I wouldn't give a rats what the M: drive says. BUT, the M: drive is where the Q article said to look. Unfortunately, the Q article didn't say how to change it. Ed pointed me to the recipient policy, and with a little experimentation, I found that simply having a policy that matched the users SMTP addresses was not enough. The default policy has to match. -Original Message- From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K OWA M: drive That's not how it works. You're still sorta confused. Your users need an SMTP address that matches that specified in the default recipient policy. Period. M: drive will also reflect the changes, but it's not the lead indicator. -Original Message- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Thursday, February 28, 2002 08:38 AM Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List Conversation: E2K OWA M: drive Subject: RE: E2K OWA M: drive Well, the M: drive was just a symptom. The actual problem was OWA not working unless I added an extra SMTP address to each user, which I didn't really want to do. But anyway, Ed, you pointed me in the right direction. I already had a recipient policy with the desired @kimball.com SMTP address, but it turns out I needed to edit the *default* policy to use the same SMTP address. That (along with a reboot) changed the directory under the M: drive and allowed OWA to start working. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K OWA M: drive I think your problem has nothing to do with the M: drive. It has to do with the fact that you must have a recipient policy that matches the user's SMTP address. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 5:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K OWA M: drive I've got a question about Exchange 2k. On my lab system where I'm testing E2k, I initially could not get OWA to work. I then found that in order for OWA to work, users must have an SMTP address corresponding to the subdirectory name on the E2k server's M: drive. My MSX5.5 org and site are KIIX and EXCHANGEX respectively. After I added an E2K server to the site, the subdirectory under the M: drive is EXCHANGEX.KIIX.COM. No recipients have an SMTP address of @exchangex.kiix.com. OWA won't work until I add an @exchangex.kiix.com address to each recipient. Is there a way to change the subdirectory under the M: drive to correspond with the existing recipients SMTP addresses (@kimball.com)? _ 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: Cooking.com Replies?
Yeah I'm getting them to. -Original Message- From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Cooking.com Replies? Is anybody else getting automated replies from Cooking.com everytime they post to the Exchange list? Also, on my previous thread, Martin Blackstone said, In IIS on the OWA server, you could also set the default domain. Then everyone would just get a Username and a password box. I went to the KB and found an article that seemed to tell me how to do this. But to do it you have to enable Basic Authentication. I don't want to do that. Is there another way? Rob _ 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: Cooking.com Replies?
Yes. We are getting those too. I blame it on an idiot. I don't know which one though. -Original Message- From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Cooking.com Replies? Is anybody else getting automated replies from Cooking.com everytime they post to the Exchange list? Also, on my previous thread, Martin Blackstone said, In IIS on the OWA server, you could also set the default domain. Then everyone would just get a Username and a password box. I went to the KB and found an article that seemed to tell me how to do this. But to do it you have to enable Basic Authentication. I don't want to do that. Is there another way? Rob _ 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: Cooking.com Replies?
Weird. I blame all our problems on the same guy(s). -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:20 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Cooking.com Replies? Yes. We are getting those too. I blame it on an idiot. I don't know which one though. -Original Message- From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Cooking.com Replies? Is anybody else getting automated replies from Cooking.com everytime they post to the Exchange list? Also, on my previous thread, Martin Blackstone said, In IIS on the OWA server, you could also set the default domain. Then everyone would just get a Username and a password box. I went to the KB and found an article that seemed to tell me how to do this. But to do it you have to enable Basic Authentication. I don't want to do that. Is there another way? Rob _ 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: Cooking.com Replies?
I got two. Before the sender address ended up in my killfile... Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Cooking.com Replies? Yeah I'm getting them to. -Original Message- From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Cooking.com Replies? Is anybody else getting automated replies from Cooking.com everytime they post to the Exchange list? Also, on my previous thread, Martin Blackstone said, In IIS on the OWA server, you could also set the default domain. Then everyone would just get a Username and a password box. I went to the KB and found an article that seemed to tell me how to do this. But to do it you have to enable Basic Authentication. I don't want to do that. Is there another way? Rob _ 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: Cooking.com Replies?
You do know that you only get a logon dialog when using Basic Authentication, don't you? With Windows Integrated Authentication there is no reason for a default domain because the user credentials are passed from IE to IIS. Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Cooking.com Replies? Is anybody else getting automated replies from Cooking.com everytime they post to the Exchange list? Also, on my previous thread, Martin Blackstone said, In IIS on the OWA server, you could also set the default domain. Then everyone would just get a Username and a password box. I went to the KB and found an article that seemed to tell me how to do this. But to do it you have to enable Basic Authentication. I don't want to do that. Is there another way? Rob _ 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: Cooking.com Replies?
I gone one although it was in response to a post to the NT 2000 list. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Cooking.com Replies? Yeah I'm getting them to. -Original Message- From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Cooking.com Replies? Is anybody else getting automated replies from Cooking.com everytime they post to the Exchange list? Also, on my previous thread, Martin Blackstone said, In IIS on the OWA server, you could also set the default domain. Then everyone would just get a Username and a password box. I went to the KB and found an article that seemed to tell me how to do this. But to do it you have to enable Basic Authentication. I don't want to do that. Is there another way? Rob _ 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: Cooking.com Replies?
If integrated Auth. is shut off and a domain name is typed in he won't be asked for a domain name. You do know that you only get a logon dialog when using Basic Authentication, don't you? With Windows Integrated Authentication there is no reason for a default domain because the user credentials are passed from IE to IIS. Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Cooking.com Replies? Is anybody else getting automated replies from Cooking.com everytime they post to the Exchange list? Also, on my previous thread, Martin Blackstone said, In IIS on the OWA server, you could also set the default domain. Then everyone would just get a Username and a password box. I went to the KB and found an article that seemed to tell me how to do this. But to do it you have to enable Basic Authentication. I don't want to do that. Is there another way? Rob _ 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] _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _ 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: Exchange Migration Question
Did you read the message to which I replied? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Williams Scott CTR Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question Ed, Aren't those only MetaDirectory consolidation tools? We are looking for a migration tool that will migrate ALL date (ie: Public Folders, All Exchange data, All Groupwise mail/data, and SendMail mail. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question Avaliable options I'm aware of: 1. Compaq LDAP Directory Synchronization Utility (LDSU) 2. Microsoft Metadirectory Server 3. SimpleSync 4. MS Mail Dirsync (unsupported by Microsoft, but is supposed to work) 5. InterOrg tool 6. Your own code Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Williams Scott CTR Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 7:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question Yeah, unfortunately we have 15 months to complete the project. Currently we are using a PERL script to do GAL consolidation across the 3 platforms, and its very unstable. We did purchase NETIQ's monitoring software (APP Manager). Would it be recommended to go with a third party solution for migration purposes or use Microsoft's provided tools? ($$ is not a factor) -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question http://www.netiq.com/products/migrate/default.asp http://www.compusven.com/ I'd do it as a stepping stone project versus all at once though. :) William -Original Message- From: Williams Scott CTR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange Migration Question I've been detailed to an assignment that will involve a migration of 5 different Exchange 5.5 ORG's, 2 Groupwise ORG's, and 1 Sendmail to ONE Exchange 5.5 org. My question is What would be your recommendation on the best migration utility that could do most, if not everything? I've looked at Direct to 1 and E-mail Shuttle (CompuSeven). Anyone have a recommendation? Thanks for your input. _ 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] _ 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: Exchange Migration Question
Oh, ok I think you misunderstood me. Currently we are using a PERL script to consolidate 9 different e-mail GAL's. Because of this, it has been mandated that we go to ONE CONSOLIDATED e-mail system (Exchange 5.5). So I'm looking for a do it all utility that will migrate all exchange orgs/data, groupwise data, and sendmail. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question Did you read the message to which I replied? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Williams Scott CTR Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question Ed, Aren't those only MetaDirectory consolidation tools? We are looking for a migration tool that will migrate ALL date (ie: Public Folders, All Exchange data, All Groupwise mail/data, and SendMail mail. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question Avaliable options I'm aware of: 1. Compaq LDAP Directory Synchronization Utility (LDSU) 2. Microsoft Metadirectory Server 3. SimpleSync 4. MS Mail Dirsync (unsupported by Microsoft, but is supposed to work) 5. InterOrg tool 6. Your own code Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Williams Scott CTR Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 7:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question Yeah, unfortunately we have 15 months to complete the project. Currently we are using a PERL script to do GAL consolidation across the 3 platforms, and its very unstable. We did purchase NETIQ's monitoring software (APP Manager). Would it be recommended to go with a third party solution for migration purposes or use Microsoft's provided tools? ($$ is not a factor) -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Migration Question http://www.netiq.com/products/migrate/default.asp http://www.compusven.com/ I'd do it as a stepping stone project versus all at once though. :) William -Original Message- From: Williams Scott CTR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange Migration Question I've been detailed to an assignment that will involve a migration of 5 different Exchange 5.5 ORG's, 2 Groupwise ORG's, and 1 Sendmail to ONE Exchange 5.5 org. My question is What would be your recommendation on the best migration utility that could do most, if not everything? I've looked at Direct to 1 and E-mail Shuttle (CompuSeven). Anyone have a recommendation? Thanks for your input. _ 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] _ 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: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer
Ayup! Kinda makes you wanna rush right out and sign a contract with them, doesn't it? ;o) -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 5:06 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer ROFL! So you ask her seven questions: Well, I'd have to know a couple more things...like: 1) Who's the company? 2) Where in New Jersey? 3) Are they going to pay to move me? 4) Signing bonuses? 5) Bonuses of any kind? 6) Benefits? 7) Do I pay for ongoing training/conferences or are they going to? and her only response is : Where exactly would you be moving from? -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 5:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer Here's the script for questions I've already asked Ms Bonade about this position: Jim Blunt == Unfortunately, I will not be able to relocate anyone for this position. Thank You, Julie -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:13 PM To: 'Bonade, Julie' Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity SE corner of Washington State. -Original Message- From: Bonade, Julie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:39 PM To: 'Blunt, James H (Jim)' Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity Where exactly would you be moving from? -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:55 PM To: 'Bonade, Julie' Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity Julie, Well, I'd have to know a couple more things...like: 1) Who's the company? 2) Where in New Jersey? 3) Are they going to pay to move me? 4) Signing bonuses? 5) Bonuses of any kind? 6) Benefits? 7) Do I pay for ongoing training/conferences or are they going to? Thanks, JIm Blunt -Original Message- From: Bonade, Julie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:31 PM To: 'Blunt, James H (Jim)' Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity Long-term - could go for years - really depending on the contractor and how long he/she wants to be there. I have had consultants there for 4-5 years and still continuing on. It will be an hourly rate but it will be based on the person's experience so I can't be too sure. What type of hourly rate are you looking at? Julie Bonade [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:44 PM To: 'Bonade, Julie' Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity Can you be more specific concerning the length of the contract and the pay? James H (Jim) Blunt Network / Microsoft Exchange Admin. Network Infrastructure Group Bechtel Hanford, Inc. -Original Message- From: Julie Bonade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer If anyone is looking or knows of anyone that is looking for a new opportunity - Please read below. 3rd Level Messaging/Exchange Engineer (long-term contract in New Jersey) Day to day responsibilities include Level 3 Messaging support, requiring advanced troubleshooting skills and techniques. Migration engineering, project participation, Server monitoring/management using products like NetIQ, CIM, Inlook, Dell OpenManage. Message flow design and architecture, candidate must be an expert in; planning Directory Replication, Public folder Replication, Site and X.400 connectors, Notes/CC:Mail connectors, Internet mail relay, Sendmail/Solaris, and Exchange 2000. _ 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] -- 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
RE: Cooking.com Replies?
Right. This is the so-called Basic Authentication. In this case you either can enter the default logon domain in IIS (or, if using Exchange 2000 - ESM) or just enter \ to enable UPN style logons in a Windows 2000/Exchange 2000 environment. Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Cooking.com Replies? If integrated Auth. is shut off and a domain name is typed in he won't be asked for a domain name. You do know that you only get a logon dialog when using Basic Authentication, don't you? With Windows Integrated Authentication there is no reason for a default domain because the user credentials are passed from IE to IIS. Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Cooking.com Replies? Is anybody else getting automated replies from Cooking.com everytime they post to the Exchange list? Also, on my previous thread, Martin Blackstone said, In IIS on the OWA server, you could also set the default domain. Then everyone would just get a Username and a password box. I went to the KB and found an article that seemed to tell me how to do this. But to do it you have to enable Basic Authentication. I don't want to do that. Is there another way? Rob _ 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] _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _ 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: XP on 2000 Network
Hi there I actually have XP professional at home, and I get the same thing (only username and password box). The way that I get in all the time is: domain\username password Hope this helps Thanks Russell -Original Message- From: Bauschek, Joe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: XP on 2000 Network I think it might be a XP-Home edition has no domain authentication issue. Check TechNet? Regards, Joe Bauschek - Network Engineer Medical Information Management Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 9:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: XP on 2000 Network Hello everybody-- We have a native Windows 2000 (SP2) network, with an Exchange 2000 (SP2) server. When they connect to OWA from home, using IE 5.5 or 6 on a Windows 98 or 2000 box, they get three boxes to fill in: Username, Password, Domain. I have two users who have Windows XP computers at home, and when they connect to our OWA site, using IE 6, they only get two boxes to fill in: Username and Password. No Domain. So they can't get in. Is there a remedy or workaround so it will work for them? Thanks, Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Robert Moore, MCSE Network Administrator The Agnes Irwin School [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]
Public Folders
I am using Exchange 5.5 SP4 Under Public folders I have the following folders in this configuration: Public Folders - Favorites - All Public Folders - Internet Newsgroups This was the default setup. I want to add folders under Public Folders and I was to remove the All Public Folders folder and Favorites folder. Can I do this and should I administer public folder permissions from the server or from Outlook? Phil _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ 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: E2K OWA M: drive
Well, yes, we're on the same page just saying it differently. You're right, Ken. By the way, this doesn't apply if you make a new http virtual server to serve the other domain. Then you don't have to go giving them a fake email address. -Original Message- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:19 AM Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List Conversation: E2K OWA M: drive Subject: RE: E2K OWA M: drive I don't doubt I'm confused, but didn't you just say the same thing I said? It boils down to this: the *default* recipient policy must match one of the SMTP addresses of the users. If it don't, OWA won't work. You can add all the recipient policies you like, but it's the default policy that counts for OWA. Usually, I wouldn't give a rats what the M: drive says. BUT, the M: drive is where the Q article said to look. Unfortunately, the Q article didn't say how to change it. Ed pointed me to the recipient policy, and with a little experimentation, I found that simply having a policy that matched the users SMTP addresses was not enough. The default policy has to match. -Original Message- From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K OWA M: drive That's not how it works. You're still sorta confused. Your users need an SMTP address that matches that specified in the default recipient policy. Period. M: drive will also reflect the changes, but it's not the lead indicator. -Original Message- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Thursday, February 28, 2002 08:38 AM Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List Conversation: E2K OWA M: drive Subject: RE: E2K OWA M: drive Well, the M: drive was just a symptom. The actual problem was OWA not working unless I added an extra SMTP address to each user, which I didn't really want to do. But anyway, Ed, you pointed me in the right direction. I already had a recipient policy with the desired @kimball.com SMTP address, but it turns out I needed to edit the *default* policy to use the same SMTP address. That (along with a reboot) changed the directory under the M: drive and allowed OWA to start working. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K OWA M: drive I think your problem has nothing to do with the M: drive. It has to do with the fact that you must have a recipient policy that matches the user's SMTP address. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 5:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K OWA M: drive I've got a question about Exchange 2k. On my lab system where I'm testing E2k, I initially could not get OWA to work. I then found that in order for OWA to work, users must have an SMTP address corresponding to the subdirectory name on the E2k server's M: drive. My MSX5.5 org and site are KIIX and EXCHANGEX respectively. After I added an E2K server to the site, the subdirectory under the M: drive is EXCHANGEX.KIIX.COM. No recipients have an SMTP address of @exchangex.kiix.com. OWA won't work until I add an @exchangex.kiix.com address to each recipient. Is there a way to change the subdirectory under the M: drive to correspond with the existing recipients SMTP addresses (@kimball.com)? _ 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
NDR
One of our users is getting the following message when she sends our updated intranet web page to the everyone group in our firm. However, everyone is getting the page she is sending, no one has complained that they are not ( this is something which is done at certain time daily). I checked the eventviewer , there are no error messages. Mail box limits is set to default for all users (set by my predecessor- no policy defined yet). Exchange 5.5 sp4. Windows NT Server. //-Original Message- From: postmaster [mailto:postmaster] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:28 AM To: Robinson, Wendy Subject: Mail delivery failure Sent . Received 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation Could not deliver mail to this user. * End of message ***/ Any help would be appreciated. Raj This e-mail message, including any attachments, contains information that is confidential, may be protected by the attorney/client or other applicable privileges, and may constitute non-public information. This message is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, do not read it; please immediately notify the sender that you have received this message in error and delete this message. Unauthorized use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message or the information contained in this message or the taking of any action in reliance on it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your cooperation. _ 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]
Weird message from Outlook client
Have one of the web guys in our department with the following problem...any ideas? I asked him the following questions when he said that every time he tries to send a message, he gets the error below. 1. What error message are you getting? The operation failed with an OK box. Nothing else. 2. What OS are you running? Win2k sp2 3. What Outlook are you runnning? Outlook 98 4. What changed between the time your Outlook worked and now? Nothing 5. What have you done since it stopped working? Rebooted several times...Uninstalled Outlook completely and reinstalled. New twist...it started working, but he can only reply to two people...I'm one of them. Every new message he gets, he gets the same error message. Jim Blunt Network / E-mail Admin Network / Infrastructure Group Bechtel Hanford, Inc. 509-372-9188 There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. - Ed Crowley, Exchange Guru _ 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: NDR
Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation What part is unclear? The recipient's mailbox is full. -Original Message- From: Pillai, Raj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: NDR One of our users is getting the following message when she sends our updated intranet web page to the everyone group in our firm. However, everyone is getting the page she is sending, no one has complained that they are not ( this is something which is done at certain time daily). I checked the eventviewer , there are no error messages. Mail box limits is set to default for all users (set by my predecessor- no policy defined yet). Exchange 5.5 sp4. Windows NT Server. //-Original Message- From: postmaster [mailto:postmaster] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:28 AM To: Robinson, Wendy Subject: Mail delivery failure Sent . Received 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation Could not deliver mail to this user. * End of message ***/ Any help would be appreciated. Raj This e-mail message, including any attachments, contains information that is confidential, may be protected by the attorney/client or other applicable privileges, and may constitute non-public information. This message is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, do not read it; please immediately notify the sender that you have received this message in error and delete this message. Unauthorized use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message or the information contained in this message or the taking of any action in reliance on it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your cooperation. _ 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: Weird message from Outlook client
This one is too easy Jim. Start outlook with the cleanreminders switch. It's a corrupted appointment. Run that switch until the operation failed message stops, and a gazillion reminders appear. -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:21 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Weird message from Outlook client Have one of the web guys in our department with the following problem...any ideas? I asked him the following questions when he said that every time he tries to send a message, he gets the error below. 1. What error message are you getting? The operation failed with an OK box. Nothing else. 2. What OS are you running? Win2k sp2 3. What Outlook are you runnning? Outlook 98 4. What changed between the time your Outlook worked and now? Nothing 5. What have you done since it stopped working? Rebooted several times...Uninstalled Outlook completely and reinstalled. New twist...it started working, but he can only reply to two people...I'm one of them. Every new message he gets, he gets the same error message. Jim Blunt Network / E-mail Admin Network / Infrastructure Group Bechtel Hanford, Inc. 509-372-9188 There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. - Ed Crowley, Exchange Guru _ 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: NDR
Doesn't look like the whole NDR there either. Had you posted the whole thing, we could probably tell you exactly who has a full mailbox. But it's not unclear at all - someone has a full mb. -Original Message- From: Pillai, Raj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: NDR One of our users is getting the following message when she sends our updated intranet web page to the everyone group in our firm. However, everyone is getting the page she is sending, no one has complained that they are not ( this is something which is done at certain time daily). I checked the eventviewer , there are no error messages. Mail box limits is set to default for all users (set by my predecessor- no policy defined yet). Exchange 5.5 sp4. Windows NT Server. //-Original Message- From: postmaster [mailto:postmaster] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:28 AM To: Robinson, Wendy Subject: Mail delivery failure Sent . Received 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation Could not deliver mail to this user. * End of message ***/ Any help would be appreciated. Raj This e-mail message, including any attachments, contains information that is confidential, may be protected by the attorney/client or other applicable privileges, and may constitute non-public information. This message is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, do not read it; please immediately notify the sender that you have received this message in error and delete this message. Unauthorized use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message or the information contained in this message or the taking of any action in reliance on it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your cooperation. _ 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]
Exchange nightmares
TECH BRIEFING Want To See Something Scary? I thought you might be interested in trying this and then see your hair stand out. When I tried it just now (Wednesday Feb 27, 11am) it still worked. It's real too, yikes. This web page opens up a DOS box on your computer. Someone really interested in destruction would be able to wreak havoc on everyone visiting them. Or, cracked sites might be equipped with this doozy on their home page and all their visitors just beheaded. I'm not sure how you could protect your users against this kind of attack. Suggestions anyone? http://www.w2knews.com/rd/rd.cfm?id=020228TB-Scary _ 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: NDR
1Recipient = the Everyone group (220 users). 2 Incorrect NDR, Recipients are getting the message. 3 No limit set to mailbox size, using information store defaults. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NDR Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation What part is unclear? The recipient's mailbox is full. -Original Message- From: Pillai, Raj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: NDR One of our users is getting the following message when she sends our updated intranet web page to the everyone group in our firm. However, everyone is getting the page she is sending, no one has complained that they are not ( this is something which is done at certain time daily). I checked the eventviewer , there are no error messages. Mail box limits is set to default for all users (set by my predecessor- no policy defined yet). Exchange 5.5 sp4. Windows NT Server. //-Original Message- From: postmaster [mailto:postmaster] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:28 AM To: Robinson, Wendy Subject: Mail delivery failure Sent . Received 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation Could not deliver mail to this user. * End of message ***/ Any help would be appreciated. Raj This e-mail message, including any attachments, contains information that is confidential, may be protected by the attorney/client or other applicable privileges, and may constitute non-public information. This message is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, do not read it; please immediately notify the sender that you have received this message in error and delete this message. Unauthorized use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message or the information contained in this message or the taking of any action in reliance on it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your cooperation. _ 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] This e-mail message, including any attachments, contains information that is confidential, may be protected by the attorney/client or other applicable privileges, and may constitute non-public information. This message is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, do not read it; please immediately notify the sender that you have received this message in error and delete this message. Unauthorized use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message or the information contained in this message or the taking of any action in reliance on it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your cooperation. _ 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: NDR
William would like to recall the message: NDR Can you post the entire NDR? W -Original Message- From: Pillai, Raj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NDR 1Recipient = the Everyone group (220 users). 2 Incorrect NDR, Recipients are getting the message. 3 No limit set to mailbox size, using information store defaults. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NDR Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation What part is unclear? The recipient's mailbox is full. -Original Message- From: Pillai, Raj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: NDR One of our users is getting the following message when she sends our updated intranet web page to the everyone group in our firm. However, everyone is getting the page she is sending, no one has complained that they are not ( this is something which is done at certain time daily). I checked the eventviewer , there are no error messages. Mail box limits is set to default for all users (set by my predecessor- no policy defined yet). Exchange 5.5 sp4. Windows NT Server. //-Original Message- From: postmaster [mailto:postmaster] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:28 AM To: Robinson, Wendy Subject: Mail delivery failure Sent . Received 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation Could not deliver mail to this user. * End of message ***/ Any help would be appreciated. Raj This e-mail message, including any attachments, contains information that is confidential, may be protected by the attorney/client or other applicable privileges, and may constitute non-public information. This message is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, do not read it; please immediately notify the sender that you have received this message in error and delete this message. Unauthorized use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message or the information contained in this message or the taking of any action in reliance on it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your cooperation. _ 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] This e-mail message, including any attachments, contains information that is confidential, may be protected by the attorney/client or other applicable privileges, and may constitute non-public information. This message is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, do not read it; please immediately notify the sender that you have received this message in error and delete this message. Unauthorized use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message or the information contained in this message or the taking of any action in reliance on it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your cooperation. _ 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: NDR
Honest, it is the whole NDR. -Original Message- From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NDR Doesn't look like the whole NDR there either. Had you posted the whole thing, we could probably tell you exactly who has a full mailbox. But it's not unclear at all - someone has a full mb. -Original Message- From: Pillai, Raj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: NDR One of our users is getting the following message when she sends our updated intranet web page to the everyone group in our firm. However, everyone is getting the page she is sending, no one has complained that they are not ( this is something which is done at certain time daily). I checked the eventviewer , there are no error messages. Mail box limits is set to default for all users (set by my predecessor- no policy defined yet). Exchange 5.5 sp4. Windows NT Server. //-Original Message- From: postmaster [mailto:postmaster] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:28 AM To: Robinson, Wendy Subject: Mail delivery failure Sent . Received 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation Could not deliver mail to this user. * End of message ***/ Any help would be appreciated. Raj This e-mail message, including any attachments, contains information that is confidential, may be protected by the attorney/client or other applicable privileges, and may constitute non-public information. This message is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, do not read it; please immediately notify the sender that you have received this message in error and delete this message. Unauthorized use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message or the information contained in this message or the taking of any action in reliance on it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your cooperation. _ 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] This e-mail message, including any attachments, contains information that is confidential, may be protected by the attorney/client or other applicable privileges, and may constitute non-public information. This message is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, do not read it; please immediately notify the sender that you have received this message in error and delete this message. Unauthorized use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message or the information contained in this message or the taking of any action in reliance on it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your cooperation. _ 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: Exchange nightmares
Scott that is not a vulnerability. Its called active scripting. If you turn it off then www.cnn.com won't load properly either. Its a common integration feature. If you want to disable it properly IE security should have been set-up properly to begin with. Change your internet zone security to HIGH and that page won't load jack other than fire off antivirus warning. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Williams Scott CTR Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange nightmares TECH BRIEFING Want To See Something Scary? I thought you might be interested in trying this and then see your hair stand out. When I tried it just now (Wednesday Feb 27, 11am) it still worked. It's real too, yikes. This web page opens up a DOS box on your computer. Someone really interested in destruction would be able to wreak havoc on everyone visiting them. Or, cracked sites might be equipped with this doozy on their home page and all their visitors just beheaded. I'm not sure how you could protect your users against this kind of attack. Suggestions anyone? http://www.w2knews.com/rd/rd.cfm?id=020228TB-Scary _ 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: NDR
Is this the sort of error that might occur if the SENDER's limit has been reached, but Restrict Sending hasn't been selected? -- Drew Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now! There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -- Ed Crowley -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Pillai, Raj Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NDR Honest, it is the whole NDR. -Original Message- From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NDR Doesn't look like the whole NDR there either. Had you posted the whole thing, we could probably tell you exactly who has a full mailbox. But it's not unclear at all - someone has a full mb. -Original Message- From: Pillai, Raj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: NDR One of our users is getting the following message when she sends our updated intranet web page to the everyone group in our firm. However, everyone is getting the page she is sending, no one has complained that they are not ( this is something which is done at certain time daily). I checked the eventviewer , there are no error messages. Mail box limits is set to default for all users (set by my predecessor- no policy defined yet). Exchange 5.5 sp4. Windows NT Server. //-Original Message- From: postmaster [mailto:postmaster] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:28 AM To: Robinson, Wendy Subject: Mail delivery failure Sent . Received 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation Could not deliver mail to this user. * End of message ***/ Any help would be appreciated. Raj This e-mail message, including any attachments, contains information that is confidential, may be protected by the attorney/client or other applicable privileges, and may constitute non-public information. This message is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, do not read it; please immediately notify the sender that you have received this message in error and delete this message. Unauthorized use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message or the information contained in this message or the taking of any action in reliance on it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your cooperation. _ 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] This e-mail message, including any attachments, contains information that is confidential, may be protected by the attorney/client or other applicable privileges, and may constitute non-public information. This message is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, do not read it; please immediately notify the sender that you have received this message in error and delete this message. Unauthorized use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message or the information contained in this message or the taking of any action in reliance on it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your cooperation. _ 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: Weird message from Outlook client
Thanks Lori...as usual, you're a sweetheart! :o) -Original Message- From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 9:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Weird message from Outlook client This one is too easy Jim. Start outlook with the cleanreminders switch. It's a corrupted appointment. Run that switch until the operation failed message stops, and a gazillion reminders appear. -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:21 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Weird message from Outlook client Have one of the web guys in our department with the following problem...any ideas? I asked him the following questions when he said that every time he tries to send a message, he gets the error below. 1. What error message are you getting? The operation failed with an OK box. Nothing else. 2. What OS are you running? Win2k sp2 3. What Outlook are you runnning? Outlook 98 4. What changed between the time your Outlook worked and now? Nothing 5. What have you done since it stopped working? Rebooted several times...Uninstalled Outlook completely and reinstalled. New twist...it started working, but he can only reply to two people...I'm one of them. Every new message he gets, he gets the same error message. Jim Blunt Network / E-mail Admin Network / Infrastructure Group Bechtel Hanford, Inc. 509-372-9188 There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. - Ed Crowley, Exchange Guru _ 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: Exchange nightmares
What does this have to do with Exchange, specifically? The HTML is calling a local program. For this exploit to work there has to be either a) a downloaded piece of malware to be called in this fashion or b) the called program has to accept command-line strings. For (a), there should be none on your Exchange server just by following normal security guidelines (i.e. don't log onto the console just for the heck of it, browse from a workstation not a server, etc). For (b) this is a bit easier but, again, why are you browsing from a server? - Original Message - From: Williams Scott CTR [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:32 AM Subject: Exchange nightmares TECH BRIEFING Want To See Something Scary? I thought you might be interested in trying this and then see your hair stand out. When I tried it just now (Wednesday Feb 27, 11am) it still worked. It's real too, yikes. This web page opens up a DOS box on your computer. Someone really interested in destruction would be able to wreak havoc on everyone visiting them. Or, cracked sites might be equipped with this doozy on their home page and all their visitors just beheaded. I'm not sure how you could protect your users against this kind of attack. Suggestions anyone? http://www.w2knews.com/rd/rd.cfm?id=020228TB-Scary _ 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: Exchange nightmares
Yeah, but how many networks do you know that have custom IE security settings? Granted there are a few fixes for this, but to call exe's through java, you basically can do anything you want on that PC. I'm no code guru so I'm not aware of the capabilities, but it doesn't help with virus problems. -Original Message- From: Rocky Stefano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange nightmares Scott that is not a vulnerability. Its called active scripting. If you turn it off then www.cnn.com won't load properly either. Its a common integration feature. If you want to disable it properly IE security should have been set-up properly to begin with. Change your internet zone security to HIGH and that page won't load jack other than fire off antivirus warning. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Williams Scott CTR Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange nightmares TECH BRIEFING Want To See Something Scary? I thought you might be interested in trying this and then see your hair stand out. When I tried it just now (Wednesday Feb 27, 11am) it still worked. It's real too, yikes. This web page opens up a DOS box on your computer. Someone really interested in destruction would be able to wreak havoc on everyone visiting them. Or, cracked sites might be equipped with this doozy on their home page and all their visitors just beheaded. I'm not sure how you could protect your users against this kind of attack. Suggestions anyone? http://www.w2knews.com/rd/rd.cfm?id=020228TB-Scary _ 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: Exchange nightmares
Well, I would think you could call different command line scripts, not sure of Outlook/OE, or any other e-mail application supports sending e-mail from a command line. It relates to Exchange because 98% of viruses are propagated by e-mail. -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange nightmares What does this have to do with Exchange, specifically? The HTML is calling a local program. For this exploit to work there has to be either a) a downloaded piece of malware to be called in this fashion or b) the called program has to accept command-line strings. For (a), there should be none on your Exchange server just by following normal security guidelines (i.e. don't log onto the console just for the heck of it, browse from a workstation not a server, etc). For (b) this is a bit easier but, again, why are you browsing from a server? - Original Message - From: Williams Scott CTR [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:32 AM Subject: Exchange nightmares TECH BRIEFING Want To See Something Scary? I thought you might be interested in trying this and then see your hair stand out. When I tried it just now (Wednesday Feb 27, 11am) it still worked. It's real too, yikes. This web page opens up a DOS box on your computer. Someone really interested in destruction would be able to wreak havoc on everyone visiting them. Or, cracked sites might be equipped with this doozy on their home page and all their visitors just beheaded. I'm not sure how you could protect your users against this kind of attack. Suggestions anyone? http://www.w2knews.com/rd/rd.cfm?id=020228TB-Scary _ 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: Exchange nightmares
Scott I didn't say customize the sec settings in IE I simply stated that setting them to HIGH (which what they should be for untrusted sites)would not enable that page to work. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Williams Scott CTR Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange nightmares Yeah, but how many networks do you know that have custom IE security settings? Granted there are a few fixes for this, but to call exe's through java, you basically can do anything you want on that PC. I'm no code guru so I'm not aware of the capabilities, but it doesn't help with virus problems. -Original Message- From: Rocky Stefano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange nightmares Scott that is not a vulnerability. Its called active scripting. If you turn it off then www.cnn.com won't load properly either. Its a common integration feature. If you want to disable it properly IE security should have been set-up properly to begin with. Change your internet zone security to HIGH and that page won't load jack other than fire off antivirus warning. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Williams Scott CTR Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange nightmares TECH BRIEFING Want To See Something Scary? I thought you might be interested in trying this and then see your hair stand out. When I tried it just now (Wednesday Feb 27, 11am) it still worked. It's real too, yikes. This web page opens up a DOS box on your computer. Someone really interested in destruction would be able to wreak havoc on everyone visiting them. Or, cracked sites might be equipped with this doozy on their home page and all their visitors just beheaded. I'm not sure how you could protect your users against this kind of attack. Suggestions anyone? http://www.w2knews.com/rd/rd.cfm?id=020228TB-Scary _ 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: Public Folders
Why??? Favorites is extremely useful. Phil - Phil Randal Network Engineer Herefordshire Council Hereford, UK -Original Message- From: Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 February 2002 16:47 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Public Folders I am using Exchange 5.5 SP4 Under Public folders I have the following folders in this configuration: Public Folders - Favorites - All Public Folders - Internet Newsgroups This was the default setup. I want to add folders under Public Folders and I was to remove the All Public Folders folder and Favorites folder. Can I do this and should I administer public folder permissions from the server or from Outlook? Phil _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ 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]
Date infected by virus?
Gee better book my reservation for the entire month to play it safe. Learn about the latest Symantec product news, services, partnerships, events and more. Announcing SecureXchange 2002, Symantec's WorldWide Users' Conference This year's conference will be October 79, 2002 in Washington, DC at the Renaissance Washington, DC hotel. SecureXchange is one of the only users' conference events that solely focuses on information security and its related topics. No other security users' conference can bring together the depth and breadth of security solutions and expertise than SecureXchange. Learn about the latest Symantec product news, services, partnerships, events and more. Announcing SecureXchange 2002, Symantec's WorldWide Users' Conference This year's conference will be October 79, 2002 in Washington, DC at the Renaissance Washington, DC hotel. SecureXchange is one of the only users' conference events that solely focuses on information security and its related topics. No other security users' conference can bring together the depth and breadth of security solutions and expertise than SecureXchange. _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com _ 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: Public Folders
As far as permissions are concerned, I think that you would want to do it in Outlook. If you need to give someone Send As permissions for the folder then you would do that in the admin console. I don't think that you can delete the All Public Folders and I wouldn't remove Favorites. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:54 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: Public Folders I am using Exchange 5.5 SP4 Under Public folders I have the following folders in this configuration: Public Folders - Favorites - All Public Folders - Internet Newsgroups This was the default setup. I want to add folders under Public Folders and I was to remove the All Public Folders folder and Favorites folder. Can I do this and should I administer public folder permissions from the server or from Outlook? Phil _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ 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: Public Folders
You can't remove the ALL Public Folders, this is the top level folder structure for Public Folders. As for the Favorites, there may be a reg hack for that. -Original Message- From: Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Public Folders I am using Exchange 5.5 SP4 Under Public folders I have the following folders in this configuration: Public Folders - Favorites - All Public Folders - Internet Newsgroups This was the default setup. I want to add folders under Public Folders and I was to remove the All Public Folders folder and Favorites folder. Can I do this and should I administer public folder permissions from the server or from Outlook? Phil _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ 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: Cooking.com Replies?
Hi there Actually, this looks like glorified spam!! Pretty cute move, eh?? Thanks Russell -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Cooking.com Replies? Right. This is the so-called Basic Authentication. In this case you either can enter the default logon domain in IIS (or, if using Exchange 2000 - ESM) or just enter \ to enable UPN style logons in a Windows 2000/Exchange 2000 environment. Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Cooking.com Replies? If integrated Auth. is shut off and a domain name is typed in he won't be asked for a domain name. You do know that you only get a logon dialog when using Basic Authentication, don't you? With Windows Integrated Authentication there is no reason for a default domain because the user credentials are passed from IE to IIS. Siegfried / -Original Message- From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Cooking.com Replies? Is anybody else getting automated replies from Cooking.com everytime they post to the Exchange list? Also, on my previous thread, Martin Blackstone said, In IIS on the OWA server, you could also set the default domain. Then everyone would just get a Username and a password box. I went to the KB and found an article that seemed to tell me how to do this. But to do it you have to enable Basic Authentication. I don't want to do that. Is there another way? Rob _ 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] _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _ 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]
Msx5.5 versus SPAM
MSX5.5, SP4 Hi Seems that our Exchange server is being used by externals to sent messages like spam, what do we need to do to allow just our three domains *.com to send messages out? tia =er _ 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: XP on 2000 Network
In IIS admin go to your Web Site container (Default Web Site, or whatever you named it to) and in the panel on the right scroll down to Exchange. Right click on that and choose Properties and then Directory Security. Then under Anonymous Access and Authentication Control choose Edit. In there you will find Basic Authentication. That is where you will set up the Default Domain to be used. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 7:49 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: XP on 2000 Network That sounds like a good way to go. How do I do that? -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: XP on 2000 Network In IIS on the OWA server, you could also set the default domain. Then everyone would just get a Username and a password box. -Original Message- From: HANNA, Keith (TSL Shirley) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 7:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: XP on 2000 Network format is: domain\username password -Original Message- From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 February 2002 15:28 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: XP on 2000 Network Hello everybody-- We have a native Windows 2000 (SP2) network, with an Exchange 2000 (SP2) server. When they connect to OWA from home, using IE 5.5 or 6 on a Windows 98 or 2000 box, they get three boxes to fill in: Username, Password, Domain. I have two users who have Windows XP computers at home, and when they connect to our OWA site, using IE 6, they only get two boxes to fill in: Username and Password. No Domain. So they can't get in. Is there a remedy or workaround so it will work for them? Thanks, Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Robert Moore, MCSE Network Administrator The Agnes Irwin School [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] _ 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]
