Now #2 really made me laugh!!!
That was so TRUE!
Nice job Andy
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:36 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Top 10 things overheard at TechEd
#2: Where the hell is the Arena?
- Original
Just to throw in a few cents that might not help:
Could you schedule a stop services on the owa server when you take the server offline?
This doesn't solve much, but at least gives you control over the restart and limits
the down period. Especially if your routine maintenance is changed to say
5. Did you see those great new Messageware OWA products
4. Where can I get one of those kewl MEC'Ed VIP shirts
;-)
-Original Message-
From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 6:49 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Top 10 things overheard at TechEd
Well,
I don't have 100Mb/S to my house (assuming you are talking about MAPI/HTTP, however it
is a very cool feature and 225MB is not a huge mailbox. So, yes the whole 225MB is
brought down, and depending on your new-mail traffic (ie. how many of these lists you
are on) you may see some
Here, Here!
I totally agree. Even when I created Anti-Virus software the Default for Sender
Notification is always OFF:
1. It is very possible that the message is not from the sender as the sender address
is often faked by a virus
2. It could be a warning or false positive, for example
This was in the last MSD2D and might help
What to do if OWA Users Can't Logoff
One of our clients called recently to seek our help with a troubling
problem: The OWA logoff button was prompting their users for their
credentials and failing to log them off of OWA.
The problem was first reported
Third party products provide this ... like SessionGuard at http://www.messageware.com
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 5:54 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: OWA and Timeout For Users
In E2K? Notsomuch.
On
No,
When you hit the OWA URL, you get the authentication prompt. After authentication, you
go right to your inbox. There is no homepage as in 5.5. although I did see an example
from Microsoft at some point where it redirected to OWA after displaying a nice page.
Mark
Add Security and Features
Try messageware for the Plus Pack 5.5
http://www.messageware.net
here are some screen shots - check out the GAL!
http://www.messageware.net/enews/pp5531j03/PlusPack55NewsFlash.html
-Original Message-
From: Williams Scott CTR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003
There is a new version of the Plus Pack, gives you Spelling, GALContact addressing
views, signatures, and a couple of other things.
Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more information or an online demo.
-Original Message-
From: Ali Wilkes (IT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday,
Jon,
You could have a look at this OWA audit for some more details. Be aware that the
document is useful, but the issues in it (as well as your #1) are handled by
Messageware's SecureLogoff product.
http://www.messageware.net/audits/owa.html
-Original Message-
From: Martin, Jon
products?
A question for the group on a related topic: is it common practice to
allow
non-VPN clients to access Outlook via OWA, or do most companies require at
least a VPN connection?
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Mark Rotman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 12
7031 doesn't have to be Code Red, this can be the result of many DoS attacks as well.
Can you check that the DLLs on the FEP are indeed updated with the latest security
patch:
From Q273877
The English version of this fix should have the following file attributes or later:
Date Time
Greg,
1. Do they go through a Front End?
2. Is the Front End set for Basic Authentication. Check Exchange, Exchweb/bin, Public
3. Does it work if they access Public? //server/public
4. Is she getting requested for User,Password or User,Password,Domain
5. Anything funny with the ID
You could try out a third party product - SecureLogoff for OWA
http://www.messageware.net
-Original Message-
From: Gregory Householder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 10:53 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA Exchange 2000
We have tried both.
I believe it comes back on the response after you type the EHLO command
Mark
Plus Pack for OWA
SecureLogoff for OWA
http://www.messageware.net
-Original Message-
From: Stevens, Dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 2:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Thought it was worth adding a few notes on the Plus Pack from Messageware. Our track
record to date is support of the SP's on the same day as general release from
Microsoft. SP3 was fully supported when released - partnering and market share has it
privileges.
Mark
PS. We are currently
Hi Kim,
The party sounds great.
Mark Rotman
Messageware Incorporated
-Original Message-
From: Kim Cameron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 11:26 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: list party at MEC 2002?
forward your reply to: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Just to clarify RFC821 versus RFC822
It is true that RFC821 DOES NOT allow this character in the destination headers.
However, RFC822 DOES allow this character. In fact there are follow-on RFCs that
describe Quoted-Printable for the 822 headers. So, you should be able to have the
descriptive
We've considered it several times as well - and it might fit well with our Plus Pack
and SecureLogoff products.
Please contact me should you wish to consider a custom project.
Mark
Plus Pack for OWA
SecureLogoff for OWA
http://www.messageware.net
-Original Message-
From:
Is there any point to discussing an upgrade already? SP3 just came out and Titanium
will be a while, sit back relax.
-Original Message-
From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 2:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Titanium (aka: Exchange
QA
http://www.microsoft.com/exchange
or for great add-ons to the current version:
http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/partners
Mark
Plus Pack for OWA
SecureLogoff for OWA
http://www.messageware.net
-Original Message-
From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Why don't you drop down to basic authentication rather than integrated. That way you
can try to logon without the domain. This might help narrow the issue down. Also check
that the recipient update service
Let us know the results.
Also, you say you added an SMTP email address as [EMAIL
You should be careful when opening those restrictions. Kletz for example uses .. as
part of its attack to gain control of a command shell and execute files. Be sure you
other IIS restrictions like the script directory are properly secured.
Mark
Plus Pack for OWA
SecureLogoff for OWA
1. Double check the security on EXCHWEB directories. If you are using IE most data is
pulled from there. It normally does not require authentication.
2. Also verify that the recipient update has added SMTP Proxies on the users
Mark
Plus Pack for OWA 2000
SecureLogoff for OWA 2000
You should have a look at this security test plan as well to see the impact of
browsers credentials on your environment
http://www.messageware.net/audits/owa.html
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 4:51 AM
To: Exchange
Excuse the mktg, but have you had a close look at the Plus Pack for OWA from
Messageware?
http://www.messageware.net
-Original Message-
From: Dale Geoffrey Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 3:42 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OWA2000 Spell Check and
I think that would be to narrow a definition, after all the message is delivered and
is theory is available for review.
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:42 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Catch All...
The one
Exactly, these RFC sections indicate that the SMTP server is responsible for the
delivery of the message and the message itself must never be lost prior to delivery to
the destination system.
The RFC is not broken because:
a) the message is at its ultimate destination - domain.com
b) The
Yuck ... it leaves a lot to be desired for content scanning / anti-spam. Its a great
anti-virus product, but having to define all the words and domains and not having an
active capabilities removes it from the ranks.
I'd look at MailEssentials, Praetor, Mailmarshall or a few other true
You could check out Praetor at www.messageware.net
-Original Message-
From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tue 23/04/2002 8:40 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: RE: What is everyone using for spam prevention for Exchange 2000?
Someday Real
the OST/PST out since they
really belong to the fat-client
Mark
**Plus Pack for OWA 2000
**SecureLogoff for OWA 2000
http://www.messageware.com
-Original Message-
From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 4:22 PM
To: Mark Rotman; Exchange
Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:08 AM
To: Mark Rotman; Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Webs
It's a feature. In general it can be safely ignored.. Assuming your users
can log in via OWA that is.
Chris
-- Chris Scharff
Senior Sales Engineer
MessageOne
If you can't
Actually,
You can skip all the 822 fields and most hosts will allow you to specify the
from as anything. Some may require a valid domain, but it does not need to
be your own. The only giveaway might be the return-path in the header. In
this case the TO will match the 821 rcpt to.
telnet
dcdiag /? from the resource kit or MSDN or microsoft support
Mark
http://www.messageware.com
Plus Pack for OWA 2000
SecureLogoff for OWA 2000
-Original Message-
From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 4:17 PM
To: Mark Rotman; Exchange
1:56 PM
To: Mark Rotman; Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook Web Access
I'm not sure how one would quantify those things in hard dollars. What cost
would one assign to the inability to create note objects via OWA?
If you don't need them, there's $0 cost associated with the inability
More comments inline
...snip...
How about the tangible fixed costs like:
OWA CAL versus Outlook CAL
-- Same cost.
Right, its just the cost of Outlook, which includes a CAL so something like
$60 Outlook versus $20 OWA, dependent on order quantities and licensing
programs?
Bandwidth of
See the Plus Pack for OWA 2000 at
http://www.messageware.com
-Original Message-
From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 4:11 PM
To: Mark Rotman; Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Add signature in webmail
By default you cannot
38 matches
Mail list logo
