Re: winmail.dat

[Mike Carlson]

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q138053sd=tech

I have an app called fentun.exe that I use to get the attachment out of the
winmail.dat file when it comes from external. Works pretty slick, but in
your case you don't want to have to send that to everyone.

-Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.uselessthoughts.com
- Original Message - 
From: Miller, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:16 AM
Subject: winmail.dat


 All,

 We are in the process of moving from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2000 (SP3,
May
 Post SP3 rollup). We have 3 Regional Hubs to which all outbound SMTP
traffic
 is routed through from downstream offices. My Team is getting numerous
 complaints of external clients receiving the winmail.dat files instead of
 the original attachments (hotmail, aol, etc...). This only happens to our
 senders that are from a downstream office. If we send from one of the Hub
 locations it works perfect every time. I think then we have narrowed it
down
 to the X400 connector, as that is the only difference between sending from
a
 downstream office and a Hub. We have the settings on Exchange 2000
 connectors the same as they were with the 5.5 X400 connectors. Has anyone
 else experienced this?

 TIA,

 BM

 _
 List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
 Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
 To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: New Entourage

[Mike Carlson]

[1] I hate grammar Nazi's. This is email, not English class. G37  0V3R 17!!

[2] I did RTFM. I guess I just didn't get to the part about Public Folders
not showing up correctly. I figured since I was browsing through the recent
posts, I would just ask a simple question and see what others results were
before I went home to try and figure it out. I installed it last night, set
up the account and looked at the public folders. About 10 minutes of time
spent so far. As far as you being too important, I wasn't referring to the
free/busy server issue, I was referring to this:

  [3] And I don't really care all that much because I'm playing with
cooler
  Exchange tools for both the PC and Mac at the moment than Entourage,
which
  at the moment is working 'good enough' for my needs.

If you don't really care, why even reply?

[3] If everyone RTFM from front to back before they even installed the app,
these lists would be little more than haiku Fridays. I think you need to get
off your high horse. If your only worth while response is going to be RTFM,
then why bother sending an email?

-Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.uselessthoughts.com

- Original Message - 
From: Chris Scharff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: New Entourage


 It's you're not your. And don't blame me for your inability to RTFM.
 This is indeed a peer support newsgroup; if you don't like my responses
feel
 free to add me to your killfile. I couldn't care less.

 Indicating I don't have time to go troubleshoot free/busy issues on my
 machine is hardly an attempt to blow off about how important I am. I was
 simply pointing out the only unexpected issue I've seen with the Exchange
 update for Entourage. The issue you describe seems to be expected
behavior
 based on the help files, but I guess you're too important to read those
and
 need the rest of us to do your work for you.


  From: Mike Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 15:08:13 -0500
  To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: New Entourage
 
  Well your a happy guy. Thanks for the great answer there. For a minute I
  thought this a group to help each other out, not blow off about how
  important we are.
 
  Since I am not at home and not near a Mac with Entourage installed, I
cant
  really read the help file right now. I figured if you didn't see the
same
  issue I would dig further, if you didn't see the same issue, I wouldn't
  worry about it right now.
 
  I would figure the appropriate response would be:
 
  1. I don't have any public folders of calendar or contact type so I cant
  test it
 
  OR
 
  2. Yes/No
 
  Since you were so helpful, I wont comment on my status of the free/busy
  server thing either since I have cooler things to play as well.
 
  =)
 
  -Mike Carlson
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  http://www.uselessthoughts.com
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Chris Scharff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 2:48 PM
  Subject: Re: New Entourage
 
 
  Do I see Have you read the help files yet? The client is working as
I
  would expect it to work for me at the moment based on my reading of the
  help
  files. With the exception of the free/busy server which I haven't had
time
  to look into.[1]
 
  [1] Since Macs aren't supported on my network, it has pretty low
  priority.[2]
  [2] Plus it's my Mac, which puts it even lower on the priority list.[3]
  [3] And I don't really care all that much because I'm playing with
cooler
  Exchange tools for both the PC and Mac at the moment than Entourage,
which
  at the moment is working 'good enough' for my needs.
 
  From: Mike Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 14:24:45 -0500
  To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: New Entourage
 
  Do you see the same issues of Calendar or Contact type public folders
  looking like IMAP folders and not actual contacts or calendar entries?
 
  -Mike Carlson
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  http://www.uselessthoughts.com
  - Original Message -
  From: Chris Scharff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 12:05 PM
  Subject: Re: New Entourage
 
 
  It works just fine in E2K. The Entourage help files contain quite a
bit
  of
  information, might try reading those for what the expected
  functionality
  is.
 
  From: Atkinson, Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:18:53 +0100
  To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: New Entourage
 
  Ok, can anyone confirm how it works with E2K?
 
  With 5.5 you get what looks like an IMAP connection...
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: 06 August 2003 16:41

Re: New Entourage

[Mike Carlson]

I am using e2k SP3.

-Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.uselessthoughts.com

- Original Message - 
From: Atkinson, Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: New Entourage


 Ok, can anyone confirm how it works with E2K?

 With 5.5 you get what looks like an IMAP connection...

 -Original Message-
 From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: 06 August 2003 16:41
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: New Entourage

 Its designed for E2K or higher

 -Original Message-
 From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 8:37 AM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: New Entourage

 I got the same results you did, using Entourage with an Exchange 5.5
server.
 Does it maybe work better with 2000?

 -Peter


 -Original Message-
 From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 5:38
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: Re: New Entourage


 I myself don't like the Entourage update for Office X. I don't get
anything
 more than I did with IMAP it seems. Any public folders that are set to be
of
 Calendar type or Contact type don't show up correctly.

 Is there a list of specific benefits of the update over just using IMAP?

 -Mike Carlson
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.uselessthoughts.com

 - Original Message - 
 From: Atkinson, Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 3:11 AM
 Subject: RE: New Entourage


  I'm thinking about trying out citrix
 
   -Original Message-
   From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Sent: 05 August 2003 19:44
   To: Exchange Discussions
   Subject: RE: New Entourage
  
  
   So are OSX Macs therefore doomed to OWA, or is there an alternative?
  
   -Original Message-
   From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 1:44 PM
   To: Exchange Discussions
   Subject: RE: New Entourage
  
   I think they did away with Outlook because they were in the
   semi-absurd situation of maintaining three entirely different
   mail clients for the Mac, none of which made everyone, happy,
   and two of which weren't OS X native, so they needed major
   upgrades, and were free. I don't find it at all
   incomprehensable that they'd concentrate their resources on
   the product that generates some revenue. As far as
   Entourage's new Exchange awareness goes, it's about what
   you'd expect from a point upgrade.
  
   -Peter
  
  
   -Original Message-
   From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:25
   To: Exchange Discussions
   Subject: RE: New Entourage
  
  
   I don't doubt it.  That makes perfect business sense.
  
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:43 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Entourage
   
   
My personal opinion is that they did away with Outlook for
the Mac because
OS X, especially Jaguar (10.2.x) is the first OS with a
legitimate chance of
displacing Microsoft from their dominance of the desktop.
   It meets the
requirements of having Microsoft Office (Word/Excel/etc).
Therefore, the
only missing app is a full blown Outlook client. Its
Microsoft's only way to
stop the tide without giving up their entire Mac offering.
   
Roger
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
   
   
 -Original Message-
 From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:11 AM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: New Entourage


 This is more venting than any serious question:

 What about MAPI? (Outlook for OfficeX-1)
 What about RPC over HTTP? (I know that would have to be coded
 from scratch)
 You must enable IMAP on your Exchange server?

 Why did they get rid of the Outlook product?  Why make an
 organization with
 Macs go through so many hoops?  It's not like they have to
 code from scratch.
 It makes no sense.  The whole idea is to make the products
across both
 platforms the same or mostly the same.  They didn't take Word
 or Excel,
 retool it, take out some important features and call it
 something else, did
 they?  Keerist!!

  -Original Message-
  From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 4:02 PM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: Re: New Entourage
 
 
  Depends on how one defines Exchange aware. If by Exchange
  aware, you mean
  'it's Outlook' then no. If understanding free/busy and
and automatic
  configuration of address book and other account

Re: New Entourage

[Mike Carlson]

Do you see the same issues of Calendar or Contact type public folders
looking like IMAP folders and not actual contacts or calendar entries?

-Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.uselessthoughts.com
- Original Message - 
From: Chris Scharff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: New Entourage


 It works just fine in E2K. The Entourage help files contain quite a bit of
 information, might try reading those for what the expected functionality
is.

  From: Atkinson, Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:18:53 +0100
  To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: New Entourage
 
  Ok, can anyone confirm how it works with E2K?
 
  With 5.5 you get what looks like an IMAP connection...
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: 06 August 2003 16:41
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: RE: New Entourage
 
  Its designed for E2K or higher
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 8:37 AM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: RE: New Entourage
 
  I got the same results you did, using Entourage with an Exchange 5.5
server.
  Does it maybe work better with 2000?
 
  -Peter
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 5:38
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: Re: New Entourage
 
 
  I myself don't like the Entourage update for Office X. I don't get
anything
  more than I did with IMAP it seems. Any public folders that are set to
be of
  Calendar type or Contact type don't show up correctly.
 
  Is there a list of specific benefits of the update over just using IMAP?
 
  -Mike Carlson
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  http://www.uselessthoughts.com
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Atkinson, Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 3:11 AM
  Subject: RE: New Entourage
 
 
  I'm thinking about trying out citrix
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: 05 August 2003 19:44
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: RE: New Entourage
 
 
  So are OSX Macs therefore doomed to OWA, or is there an alternative?
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 1:44 PM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: RE: New Entourage
 
  I think they did away with Outlook because they were in the
  semi-absurd situation of maintaining three entirely different
  mail clients for the Mac, none of which made everyone, happy,
  and two of which weren't OS X native, so they needed major
  upgrades, and were free. I don't find it at all
  incomprehensable that they'd concentrate their resources on
  the product that generates some revenue. As far as
  Entourage's new Exchange awareness goes, it's about what
  you'd expect from a point upgrade.
 
  -Peter
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:25
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: RE: New Entourage
 
 
  I don't doubt it.  That makes perfect business sense.
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:43 AM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: RE: New Entourage
 
 
  My personal opinion is that they did away with Outlook for
  the Mac because
  OS X, especially Jaguar (10.2.x) is the first OS with a
  legitimate chance of
  displacing Microsoft from their dominance of the desktop.
  It meets the
  requirements of having Microsoft Office (Word/Excel/etc).
  Therefore, the
  only missing app is a full blown Outlook client. Its
  Microsoft's only way to
  stop the tide without giving up their entire Mac offering.
 
  Roger
  --
  Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
  Sr. Systems Administrator
  Inovis Inc.
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:11 AM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: RE: New Entourage
 
 
  This is more venting than any serious question:
 
  What about MAPI? (Outlook for OfficeX-1)
  What about RPC over HTTP? (I know that would have to be coded
  from scratch)
  You must enable IMAP on your Exchange server?
 
  Why did they get rid of the Outlook product?  Why make an
  organization with
  Macs go through so many hoops?  It's not like they have to
  code from scratch.
  It makes no sense.  The whole idea is to make the products
  across both
  platforms the same or mostly the same.  They didn't take Word
  or Excel,
  retool it, take out some important features and call it
  something else, did
  they?  Keerist!!
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Chris Scharff [mailto

Re: New Entourage

[Mike Carlson]

I myself don't like the Entourage update for Office X. I don't get anything
more than I did with IMAP it seems. Any public folders that are set to be of
Calendar type or Contact type don't show up correctly.

Is there a list of specific benefits of the update over just using IMAP?

-Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.uselessthoughts.com

- Original Message - 
From: Atkinson, Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 3:11 AM
Subject: RE: New Entourage


 I'm thinking about trying out citrix

  -Original Message-
  From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: 05 August 2003 19:44
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: RE: New Entourage
 
 
  So are OSX Macs therefore doomed to OWA, or is there an alternative?
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 1:44 PM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: RE: New Entourage
 
  I think they did away with Outlook because they were in the
  semi-absurd situation of maintaining three entirely different
  mail clients for the Mac, none of which made everyone, happy,
  and two of which weren't OS X native, so they needed major
  upgrades, and were free. I don't find it at all
  incomprehensable that they'd concentrate their resources on
  the product that generates some revenue. As far as
  Entourage's new Exchange awareness goes, it's about what
  you'd expect from a point upgrade.
 
  -Peter
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:25
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: RE: New Entourage
 
 
  I don't doubt it.  That makes perfect business sense.
 
   -Original Message-
   From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:43 AM
   To: Exchange Discussions
   Subject: RE: New Entourage
  
  
   My personal opinion is that they did away with Outlook for
   the Mac because
   OS X, especially Jaguar (10.2.x) is the first OS with a
   legitimate chance of
   displacing Microsoft from their dominance of the desktop.
  It meets the
   requirements of having Microsoft Office (Word/Excel/etc).
   Therefore, the
   only missing app is a full blown Outlook client. Its
   Microsoft's only way to
   stop the tide without giving up their entire Mac offering.
  
   Roger
   --
   Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
   Sr. Systems Administrator
   Inovis Inc.
  
  
-Original Message-
From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:11 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Entourage
   
   
This is more venting than any serious question:
   
What about MAPI? (Outlook for OfficeX-1)
What about RPC over HTTP? (I know that would have to be coded
from scratch)
You must enable IMAP on your Exchange server?
   
Why did they get rid of the Outlook product?  Why make an
organization with
Macs go through so many hoops?  It's not like they have to
code from scratch.
It makes no sense.  The whole idea is to make the products
   across both
platforms the same or mostly the same.  They didn't take Word
or Excel,
retool it, take out some important features and call it
something else, did
they?  Keerist!!
   
 -Original Message-
 From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 4:02 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: Re: New Entourage


 Depends on how one defines Exchange aware. If by Exchange
 aware, you mean
 'it's Outlook' then no. If understanding free/busy and
   and automatic
 configuration of address book and other account settings to
 support Exchange
 qualifies, then maybe.


  From: Erik Sojka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 15:29:57 -0400
  To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: New Entourage
 
  I haven't looked at it yet, but it wouldn't be
 Exchange-aware if it was,
  right?  When we looked at this for our lone Mac user ~18
 months ago we had to
  settle for the previous version of Outlook and the user had
 to switch between
  OSX for Office and OS9 for Outlook since we didn't want to
 open up IMAP or
  POP3 for him.



  _
 List posting FAQ:
  http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
 Web Interface:
 http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget
ext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   
_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com

Re: New Entourage

[Mike Carlson]

Well your a happy guy. Thanks for the great answer there. For a minute I
thought this a group to help each other out, not blow off about how
important we are.

Since I am not at home and not near a Mac with Entourage installed, I cant
really read the help file right now. I figured if you didn't see the same
issue I would dig further, if you didn't see the same issue, I wouldn't
worry about it right now.

I would figure the appropriate response would be:

1. I don't have any public folders of calendar or contact type so I cant
test it

OR

2. Yes/No

Since you were so helpful, I wont comment on my status of the free/busy
server thing either since I have cooler things to play as well.

=)

-Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.uselessthoughts.com

- Original Message - 
From: Chris Scharff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: New Entourage


 Do I see Have you read the help files yet? The client is working as I
 would expect it to work for me at the moment based on my reading of the
help
 files. With the exception of the free/busy server which I haven't had time
 to look into.[1]

 [1] Since Macs aren't supported on my network, it has pretty low
 priority.[2]
 [2] Plus it's my Mac, which puts it even lower on the priority list.[3]
 [3] And I don't really care all that much because I'm playing with cooler
 Exchange tools for both the PC and Mac at the moment than Entourage, which
 at the moment is working 'good enough' for my needs.

  From: Mike Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 14:24:45 -0500
  To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: New Entourage
 
  Do you see the same issues of Calendar or Contact type public folders
  looking like IMAP folders and not actual contacts or calendar entries?
 
  -Mike Carlson
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  http://www.uselessthoughts.com
  - Original Message -
  From: Chris Scharff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 12:05 PM
  Subject: Re: New Entourage
 
 
  It works just fine in E2K. The Entourage help files contain quite a bit
of
  information, might try reading those for what the expected
functionality
  is.
 
  From: Atkinson, Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:18:53 +0100
  To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: New Entourage
 
  Ok, can anyone confirm how it works with E2K?
 
  With 5.5 you get what looks like an IMAP connection...
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: 06 August 2003 16:41
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: RE: New Entourage
 
  Its designed for E2K or higher
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 8:37 AM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: RE: New Entourage
 
  I got the same results you did, using Entourage with an Exchange 5.5
  server.
  Does it maybe work better with 2000?
 
  -Peter
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 5:38
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: Re: New Entourage
 
 
  I myself don't like the Entourage update for Office X. I don't get
  anything
  more than I did with IMAP it seems. Any public folders that are set to
  be of
  Calendar type or Contact type don't show up correctly.
 
  Is there a list of specific benefits of the update over just using
IMAP?
 
  -Mike Carlson
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  http://www.uselessthoughts.com
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Atkinson, Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 3:11 AM
  Subject: RE: New Entourage
 
 
  I'm thinking about trying out citrix
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: 05 August 2003 19:44
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: RE: New Entourage
 
 
  So are OSX Macs therefore doomed to OWA, or is there an alternative?
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 1:44 PM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: RE: New Entourage
 
  I think they did away with Outlook because they were in the
  semi-absurd situation of maintaining three entirely different
  mail clients for the Mac, none of which made everyone, happy,
  and two of which weren't OS X native, so they needed major
  upgrades, and were free. I don't find it at all
  incomprehensable that they'd concentrate their resources on
  the product that generates some revenue. As far as
  Entourage's new Exchange awareness goes, it's about what
  you'd expect from a point upgrade.
 
  -Peter
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:25

Exchange 2003 with Exchange 2000

[Mike Carlson]

Is there a howto or white paper on setting up an Exchange 2003 as a second
server to an Exchange 2000 server? I was hoping to set it up and move a
couple mailboxes over to it to start playing with it.

Any gotchas or look out fors that I should know about?

Thanks,
Mike


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Mail stuck in SMTP queue

[Mike Carlson]

You would be correct. Mac 2001 does not support HTML or plain text formatted
emails.

-Mike
http://www.uselessthoughts.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:18 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail stuck in SMTP queue


I think the Mac Outlook clients can only send RTF.

-Original Message-
From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:09 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail stuck in SMTP queue


Do you see any event in the Application log to indicate any issue with the
message?  Any Event ID 290 messages?

If not try having the user send without RTF and see how that effects the
message.

Nate Couch
EDS Messaging

-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:03 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Mail stuck in SMTP queue


Exchange 2k sp3...

Every now and then one of our Mac clents will send an internet message with
an attachment that will get stuck in our SMTP connector to the
internet.   This only happens on Macs and not on Windows based PCs.  It
will stay in the queue until it times out with no NDR or any events logged.
They are using Outlook 2001 for Mac.  Any idea.  They are sending using Rich
Text also.  Thanks.

_
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: Rules Wizard Issue

[Mike Carlson]

I figured by using the term software product that you meant commercial
software. If I could find someone to buy my Hello World applications, I
would be a happy man.

Also, I have 15 move email rules for various lists and spam filtering in
Outlook 2002 and they work with no problems whatsoever.

-Mike
http://www.uselessthoughts.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 12:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Rules Wizard Issue


I guess I should have qualified that as commercial software.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 3:57 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Rules Wizard Issue


SO you've never managed to completely debug the requsisit Hello World
applications you've written in the 15 or so languages you've used? I'm
shocked!

Roger
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA


 -Original Message-
 From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 12:23 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Rules Wizard Issue
 
 
 In 23-plus years of programming and computer infrastructure experience

 I've never seen a software product that was completely free of bugs.
 Period.
 
 Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
 Tech Consultant
 hp Services
 Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Scoles, 
 Damian
 Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 7:58 AM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Rules Wizard Issue
 
 
 Roger,
   Look back at the previous emails in the discussion and see the
EXACT 
 description of the rules.  The rule is set to move the email.  Not 
 make a copy.  As for it not being a product issue, when have you ever 
 seen a Microsoft product that was not buggy? I've been using 
 Microsoft's products since DOS 2.0  It's a bug as I've said
 before And it's
 definitely not a user issue as I've made dozens of these 
 rules before in
 Outlook 2000 with NO issues.  If you have any more 
 constructive feedback
 I'd like to hear it. Thanks.
 
 
 Damian
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 9:58 AM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Rules Wizard Issue
 
 
 I've got plenty of rules just like the ones you're descibing, in 
 Outlook 2002, that all work fine. Hence, the belief its not the 
 product.
 
 --
 Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
 Sr. Systems Administrator
 Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
 Atlanta, GA
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Scoles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 9:05 AM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: RE: Rules Wizard Issue
  
  
  Roger,
  I am using the move message, not move a copy of the message.
 Either
  way, this used to work in Outlook 2000 with no issues.  I
 am assuming
  that it is a bug in Outlooks 2002 not user error as
 everyone seems to
  think.  Thanks for the 'help'.
  
  
  Damian
  
  -Original Message-
  From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 6:17 AM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: RE: Rules Wizard Issue
  
  
  There are two options for rules - move the message or move
 a copy of
  the message. You're using the latter on the rule that doesn't work
  
  --
  Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
  Sr. Systems Administrator
  Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
  Atlanta, GA
  
  
   -Original Message-
   From: Scoles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
   Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 2:36 PM
   To: Exchange Discussions
   Subject: Re: Rules Wizard Issue
   
   
   Update to this issue.  I only have two rules for my rules
 wizard to
   follow.  One is for this mailing list and the other is
 for another
   mailing list.  Both are set the exact same way.  I
 noticed that the
   first rule in the list copies the message to the folder but
  does not
   remove it from the Inbox. While the second rule moves the
  message and
   does not leave behind a copy.  It does not matter which
 of the two
   rules is first, the patter of the first failing to work properly 
   always occurs.  Any ideas?  Or is this a bug with Outlook
 2002 and
   move message rules?  Thanks.
   
   Damian
   --
   --
   ---
   I have a rule setup to move a message when it comes in if
  it matches
   certain criteria in the 

RE: Log File

[Mike Carlson]

I do some freelance web and Outlook development on the side at home. I
originally got it with my MSDN subscription but recently bought the Action
Pack which comes with Exchange Enterprise and 5 CALs. 

I only have 5 users at home.

-Mike
http://www.uselessthoughts.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
From: Allison M. Wittstock [mailto:aw;inubit.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:02 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Log File


Hi Mike,

I am just curious -- why did  you choose to buy and run Exchange for your
home 
network?  Do you work from home?  
How many users do you have? :)

AW

On Wednesday 30 October 2002 04:04, you wrote:
 I am only missing a few emails out of a couple of the log files. It is 
 exchange 2000 and it is on my home network so this isn't mission 
 critical which is why I can screw it up and not worry too much about 
 it.

 Since Exchange runs the log files every time the store is mounted I 
 was hoping I could just copy them back in and have it apply the emails 
 out of the log files into the IS.

 What do you mean by Exmerge the data out? Would I do this against the 
 IS or the log files?

 -Mike
 http://www.uselessthoughts.com
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  --
  From:   Edgington, Jeff
  Reply To:   Exchange Discussions
  Sent:   Tuesday, October 29, 2002 8:46 PM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject:RE: Log File
 
  Well.. I'm assuming E2K (don't know enough about E55 and eseutil)... 
  you have a couple questions/problems.
 
  1.  If you have already mounted the store and did not have the tlogs 
  you copied in the templogs dir... then Andy is correct... too late.  
  You should have unchecked 'last backup set' during the restore... 
  let the restore run, then copied the tlogs into that templogs dir 
  that you specified during the restore... then ran eseutil /cc by 
  hand.
 
  2.  To check the tlogs (and I _think_ you would have had to have 
  done this with the tlogs in their original place and with the 
  original db... but not sure)... eseutil /ml ... I believe.
 
  At this point, you could do the following:
 
  1.  restore that backup to an offline exchange server and do the 
  eseutil /cc there...
 
  2.  exmerge out the data however many days back you want to go.
 
  I think that you will find that if in fact you have a bad tlog.. you 
  will only be able to recover mail up to that point in time...
 
  jeff e.
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Andy David [mailto:davida;vss.com]
  Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 8:37 PM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: RE: Log File
 
 
  I think if you had restored the week old online? backup then 
  restarted the services with those log files in place it would have 
  replayed them on startup. At this late point however, I think its 
  too late. I'm sleepy ,so someone may need to correct me on this.
 
 
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Mike Carlson [mailto:domitianx;domitianx.com]
  Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 8:51 PM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: Log File
 
 
  A few weeks ago my exchange server wouldn't mount the IS. I found an 
  article that talked about moving all the log files from the MDBData 
  folder to a different location which would then let you mount the IS 
  again. Apparently
  it
  was a corrupt log file or something.
 
  In the mean time of trying to figure it out I also restored from a 
  back up tape. which set me back a week or two.
 
  My question now is can I take those log files and reapply them to 
  the current IS to get the messages applied? Do I just copy them back 
  over one at a time
  to see if I can find the offending file?
 
  Any ideas are appreciated.
 
  -Mike
  http://www.uselessthoughts.com
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  _
  List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
  Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
  To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com
  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.
 
  
  
  ==
 
 
  _
  List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
  Archives:   http

RE: VPN breaks Outlook

[Mike Carlson]

Well you will be waiting a while to move to Linux 8 seeing as they are only
on 2.4.19 right now. It will be quite a while before they get to version 8.

-Mike
http://www.uselessthoughts.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 --
 From: Blunt, James H (Jim)
 Reply To: Exchange Discussions
 Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 5:36 PM
 To:   Exchange Discussions
 Subject:  RE: VPN breaks Outlook
 
 MS is going to force us to go to a .NET/Titanium platform in order to use
 OL11?!
 
 How freakin' stupid is that?  It's a great marketing strategy, but I can't
 believe that they wouldn't make it backwards compatible with E2k/E5.5.
 Talk
 about continually shooting yourself in the foot with your customers...
 
 That's it!  I'm done playing!  I'm gonna move our whole organization to one
 Linux 8.0 server running CommuniGate Pro!  Phhhppptt!
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] 
 Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 3:22 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook
 
 
 I am pretty sure you are correct.
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Ben Schorr [mailto:bms;hawaiilawyer.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:16 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook
 
 
 Yes, but I believe it requires Titanium on the server side too.  You can't
 run over HTTP against an Exchange 5.5 Server just because you have OL11.
 
 Aloha,
 
 -Ben-
 Ben M. Schorr, MVP-Outlook, CNA, MCPx3
 Director of Information Services
 Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
 http://www.hawaiilawyer.com
   
   
  -Original Message-
  From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com]
  Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:06 AM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  
  Has it been announced?
  
  -Original Message-
  From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com]
  Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 2:59 PM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook
  
  
  Something like MAPI over http as announced for Outlook 11?
  Maybe, but given the large install base of Outlook 97 still 
  out there, it would seem that an investment in VPN today 
  would have reasonable utility over the lifespan of the 
  hardware used to run it.
  
   -Original Message-
   From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com]
   Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 1:53 PM
   To: Exchange Discussions
   Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook
   
   
   Hypothetically, if Microsoft came out with new technology
  that would
   make MAPI obsolete (something like front-end/back-end OWA
  with all the
   features of Outlook), would you then toss out the VPN and stop
   charging customers for it?
   
   I am still hoping that something like this will be
  available, but then
   if I invest in VPN technologies it would be a waste of money.
   
   
   -Original Message-
   From: Julian Stone [mailto:julian.stone;netstore.net]
   Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:36 PM
   To: Exchange Discussions
   Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook
   
   
   We also allow Mapi across the internet, but with VPN systems for
   those customers who are willing to pay for the added security.
   
   Some customers have even requested  got non HTTPS OWA
  access, where
   their password is sent in clear text !!
   
   Yours,
   
   Julian Stone
   Exchange 2000 Consultant and Webmaster
   
   Sent from Microsoft Exchange 2000 SP3 build 6249.4
   
   Netstore - Europe's Leading Application Service Provider
   
   Tel:+44 (0) 1344 444349
   Mobile: +44 (0) 7710 122 312
   Fax:+44 (0) 207 681 1238
   Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   
   LOCATION: http://www.netstore.net/contact/location.htm
   HomePage: http://www.netstore.net/
   
   
   
   -Original Message-
   From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com]
   Sent: 30 October 2002 17:22 pm
   To: Exchange Discussions
   Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook
   
   
   Been like this for 2 years now.
   
   Of course I always look for ways to make it better and safer.
   
   -Original Message-
   From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com]
   Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:07 PM
   To: Exchange Discussions
   Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook
   
   
   When your goal is to sell as many seats as possible @ $9.95
  each, you
   cut corners and customers get what they pay for.
   Welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism.
   
-Original Message-
From: Ely, Don [mailto:dely;TripathImaging.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:44 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook


But as an ASP wouldn't you just charge more for the
   services???  Maybe
I'm just being blind, but I would think one would want to
  provide a
more secure solution.  Of course, added costs go with that
   solution,
but one would apply those costs to their clients I would think...

-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff 

Log File

[Mike Carlson]

A few weeks ago my exchange server wouldn't mount the IS. I found an article
that talked about moving all the log files from the MDBData folder to a
different location which would then let you mount the IS again. Apparently it
was a corrupt log file or something.

In the mean time of trying to figure it out I also restored from a back up
tape. which set me back a week or two.

My question now is can I take those log files and reapply them to the current
IS to get the messages applied? Do I just copy them back over one at a time
to see if I can find the offending file?

Any ideas are appreciated.

-Mike
http://www.uselessthoughts.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Log File

[Mike Carlson]

I am only missing a few emails out of a couple of the log files. It is
exchange 2000 and it is on my home network so this isn't mission critical
which is why I can screw it up and not worry too much about it.

Since Exchange runs the log files every time the store is mounted I was
hoping I could just copy them back in and have it apply the emails out of the
log files into the IS.

What do you mean by Exmerge the data out? Would I do this against the IS or
the log files?

-Mike
http://www.uselessthoughts.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 --
 From: Edgington, Jeff
 Reply To: Exchange Discussions
 Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 8:46 PM
 To:   Exchange Discussions
 Subject:  RE: Log File
 
 Well.. I'm assuming E2K (don't know enough about E55 and eseutil)... you
 have a couple questions/problems.
 
 1.  If you have already mounted the store and did not have the tlogs you
 copied in the templogs dir... then Andy is correct... too late.  You
 should have unchecked 'last backup set' during the restore... let the
 restore run, then copied the tlogs into that templogs dir that you
 specified during the restore... then ran eseutil /cc by hand.
 
 2.  To check the tlogs (and I _think_ you would have had to have done
 this with the tlogs in their original place and with the original db...
 but not sure)... eseutil /ml ... I believe.
 
 At this point, you could do the following:
 
 1.  restore that backup to an offline exchange server and do the eseutil
 /cc there...
 
 2.  exmerge out the data however many days back you want to go.
 
 I think that you will find that if in fact you have a bad tlog.. you
 will only be able to recover mail up to that point in time... 
 
 jeff e.
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Andy David [mailto:davida;vss.com] 
 Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 8:37 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Log File
 
 
 I think if you had restored the week old online? backup then restarted
 the
 services with those log files in place it would have replayed them on
 startup. At this late point however, I think its too late.
 I'm sleepy ,so someone may need to correct me on this.
 
 
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Mike Carlson [mailto:domitianx;domitianx.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 8:51 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: Log File
 
 
 A few weeks ago my exchange server wouldn't mount the IS. I found an
 article
 that talked about moving all the log files from the MDBData folder to a
 different location which would then let you mount the IS again.
 Apparently
 it
 was a corrupt log file or something.
 
 In the mean time of trying to figure it out I also restored from a back
 up
 tape. which set me back a week or two.
 
 My question now is can I take those log files and reapply them to the
 current
 IS to get the messages applied? Do I just copy them back over one at a
 time
 to see if I can find the offending file?
 
 Any ideas are appreciated.
 
 -Mike
 http://www.uselessthoughts.com
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 _
 List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
 Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
 To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com
 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.
 
 
 ==
 
 
 _
 List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
 Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
 To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com
 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:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com
 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:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2

[Mike Carlson]

Here is a MS KB article on it:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q319011;

-Mike

-Original Message-
From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 11:03 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2


Elaborate:  I called McAfee about the product once for help with a problem,
they charged us for the help then transferred us.  The next guy that came on
the phone said that the product was no longer supported.  We had tons of
problems with it, service was always stopping, updates we slow coming when
compared to other products, tons of technical problem.  we dumped it.

We are running Symantec no, no problems.
-Original Message-
From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 3:42 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2

Can someone elaborate?  We've been using it for 2 years and never had any
problems.

We're about to renew our subscription (not sure if we did already), as well
as installing the management console (they call it e-policy orchestrator
nowadays..) on a new server If it's so crap, we'll consider switching...



-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 06 October 2002 8:24 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2


That will eventually change. They you will come back to the good side.

-Original Message-
From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 11:02 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2


We use McAfee throughout...  Never had any problems (apart from constantly
trying to remember if it's called McAffee or McAfee or McAffe)..

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 05 October 2002 4:26 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2


Or not...

-Original Message-
From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 7:08 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2


Or Symantec...

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of William Lefkovics
Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 00:11
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2


or GFI?


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy David
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 8:42 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2


How about Sybari or Trend? 


-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:34 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2


HA!

I know, I get grief from people all the time over it, but its my only choice
right now until I can get NAV implemented.

 --
 From: Andy David
 Reply To: Exchange Discussions
 Sent: Friday, October 4, 2002 10:32 PM
 To:   Exchange Discussions
 Subject:  RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2
 
 Ah!
 Groupshield!
 I'm melting...
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 9:31 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: McAfee GroupShield 5.2
 
 
 Anyone ever have problems with McAfee GSE 5.2 and it not being able to
open
 the private information store?
 
 I get the following error in Event Viewer:
 
 McAfee GroupShield Exchange failed to open private message store.
 
 Then I also get this error:
 
 Alert Manager Event Log Alert:
 
 An internal error occurred in Groupshield - please check the log for
 details.(from ServerName Serial# 3) IP IPAddress user SYSTEM
running
 GroupShield 5.20.664.0 odcmd)
 
 I have defragged the private store and I have uninstalled/reinstalled
GSE
 but
 I cannot figure out why this is happening.
 
 Any help is appreciated.
 
 ~!M
 
 _
 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

McAfee GroupShield 5.2

[Mike Carlson]

Anyone ever have problems with McAfee GSE 5.2 and it not being able to open
the private information store?

I get the following error in Event Viewer:

McAfee GroupShield Exchange failed to open private message store. 

Then I also get this error:

Alert Manager Event Log Alert: 

An internal error occurred in Groupshield - please check the log for
details.(from ServerName Serial# 3) IP IPAddress user SYSTEM running
GroupShield 5.20.664.0 odcmd) 

I have defragged the private store and I have uninstalled/reinstalled GSE but
I cannot figure out why this is happening.

Any help is appreciated.

~!M

_
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: McAfee GroupShield 5.2

[Mike Carlson]

HA!

I know, I get grief from people all the time over it, but its my only choice
right now until I can get NAV implemented.

 --
 From: Andy David
 Reply To: Exchange Discussions
 Sent: Friday, October 4, 2002 10:32 PM
 To:   Exchange Discussions
 Subject:  RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2
 
 Ah!
 Groupshield! 
 I'm melting...
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 9:31 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: McAfee GroupShield 5.2
 
 
 Anyone ever have problems with McAfee GSE 5.2 and it not being able to open
 the private information store?
 
 I get the following error in Event Viewer:
 
 McAfee GroupShield Exchange failed to open private message store. 
 
 Then I also get this error:
 
 Alert Manager Event Log Alert: 
 
 An internal error occurred in Groupshield - please check the log for
 details.(from ServerName Serial# 3) IP IPAddress user SYSTEM running
 GroupShield 5.20.664.0 odcmd) 
 
 I have defragged the private store and I have uninstalled/reinstalled GSE
 but
 I cannot figure out why this is happening.
 
 Any help is appreciated.
 
 ~!M
 
 _
 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.
 
 ===
 ===
 
 
 _
 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: McAfee GroupShield 5.2

[Mike Carlson]

I have NAV corp edition rolling out now, I was kinda hoping to get all my AV
in one place by implementing the NAV For Exchange, but I am open to
suggestions as well.

 --
 From: Andy David
 Reply To: Exchange Discussions
 Sent: Friday, October 4, 2002 10:41 PM
 To:   Exchange Discussions
 Subject:  RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2
 
 How about Sybari or Trend? 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:34 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2
 
 
 HA!
 
 I know, I get grief from people all the time over it, but its my only
 choice
 right now until I can get NAV implemented.
 
  --
  From:   Andy David
  Reply To:   Exchange Discussions
  Sent:   Friday, October 4, 2002 10:32 PM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject:RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2
  
  Ah!
  Groupshield! 
  I'm melting...
  
  
  -Original Message-
  From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 9:31 PM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: McAfee GroupShield 5.2
  
  
  Anyone ever have problems with McAfee GSE 5.2 and it not being able to
 open
  the private information store?
  
  I get the following error in Event Viewer:
  
  McAfee GroupShield Exchange failed to open private message store. 
  
  Then I also get this error:
  
  Alert Manager Event Log Alert: 
  
  An internal error occurred in Groupshield - please check the log for
  details.(from ServerName Serial# 3) IP IPAddress user SYSTEM running
  GroupShield 5.20.664.0 odcmd) 
  
  I have defragged the private store and I have uninstalled/reinstalled GSE
  but
  I cannot figure out why this is happening.
  
  Any help is appreciated.
  
  ~!M
  
  _
  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.
  
 
 ===
  ===
  
  
  _
  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 message.  Thank you.
 
 ===
 ===
 
 
 _
 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]

IMAP Contacts

[Mike Carlson]

Is there any way to view the contacts on the exchange server for a user
through IMAP? I tried adding the contacts folder as a subscribed IMAP
folder but that just displayed it as an email folder.

Thanks,
Mike



_
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]

Hardware Question

[Mike Carlson]

I am looking for opinions about hardware for E2k.

Would it be better to have a single processor PII 400 w/ 384MB of RAM  or a
dual PII 300 with 256MB of RAM? The sever doesn't get a lot us usage but I
want to be better prepared for when the usage increases.

Thanks,
Mike

_
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: Hardware Question

[Mike Carlson]

So the dually would be a better option for Exchange or just max out the PII
400 with as much  RAM as it will hold?

-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:31 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Hardware Question


Oh cool.  Then the users will not be expecting perfection.  I'd still go with
as much RAM as possible for the Exchange box.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Carlson
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 4:27 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Hardware Question


Right now there is only 5. It's a home development box. I do some forwarding
for a few small websites I host. Right now I run about 1200 messages a day
through it with me and the family.

I have a extra dual 300 that fell into my lap and I am trying to figure out
if I want to migrate my SQL box or my Exchange box to it.

Mike


-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:27 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Hardware Question


How many users roughly?


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Carlson
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 4:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Hardware Question


No its only function is Exchange. It does have McAfee Groupshield installed
though. Client access is OWA and Outlook 2K+2.

Mike

-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Hardware Question


Will this serve as the gateway as well, with antivirus software, OWA usage,
content management, etc?

Personally, I think both are insufficient on the memory side.  

I have a PII/300 w/ 384MB RAM hosting 12 users with varied connections and it
is maxed.  But it does work fairly well.

Given absolute choice, I'd pick the greater RAM.  

William

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Carlson
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 4:13 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Hardware Question


I am looking for opinions about hardware for E2k.

Would it be better to have a single processor PII 400 w/ 384MB of RAM or a
dual PII 300 with 256MB of RAM? The sever doesn't get a lot us usage but I
want to be better prepared for when the usage increases.

Thanks,
Mike

___



_
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: Hardware Question

[Mike Carlson]

No its only function is Exchange. It does have McAfee Groupshield installed
though. Client access is OWA and Outlook 2K+2.

Mike

-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Hardware Question


Will this serve as the gateway as well, with antivirus software, OWA usage,
content management, etc?

Personally, I think both are insufficient on the memory side.  

I have a PII/300 w/ 384MB RAM hosting 12 users with varied connections and it
is maxed.  But it does work fairly well.

Given absolute choice, I'd pick the greater RAM.  

William

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Carlson
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 4:13 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Hardware Question


I am looking for opinions about hardware for E2k.

Would it be better to have a single processor PII 400 w/ 384MB of RAM or a
dual PII 300 with 256MB of RAM? The sever doesn't get a lot us usage but I
want to be better prepared for when the usage increases.

Thanks,
Mike

___


_
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]

SP3 McAfee Groupshield

[Mike Carlson]

Anyone install SP3 on a E2k server running McAfee GroupShield? Just wondering
if anyone ran into issues? I cannot find anything on McAfee's or MS's site.

Thanks,


Mike Carlson

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: 9031460

http://www.uselessthoughts.com
http://www.domitianx.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: Somewhat OT: DNS transer?

[Mike Carlson]

I use ZoneEdit. Its free for up to 5 zones:

http://www.zoneedit.com

Its much easier to use the GraniteCanyon although I havent used Granite
Canyon in a couple years.

Mike

-Original Message-
From: kanee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 7:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Somewhat OT: DNS transer?


That's all you need to do.create a zone for your domain name on granitecanyon
and change the SOA for your zone at the place you bought your domain name
from.

Also make sure you make some sort of a donation to granite canyon, it doesn't
matter how much because they provide us with a great service..FREE DNS.

-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Pinquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 3:16 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Somewhat OT: DNS transer?


I realize this post is a bit OT, but put it under the heading: minimize
missed mail! we got into a tiff with our webhosting company over the DNS
hostfile, and are thinking about using granitecanyon.  If i want to make the
public nameserver at granitecanyon authoritative, does the previous
authoritative nameserver need to do anything, or do i simply update our
registration info?  The goal here is to keep e-mail flowing the entire time.
Reply offlist to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you think this is too
off-topic... Thx, Jeremy

_
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: IIS QUESTION

[Mike Carlson]

I was able to change the Logon user for the IIS Admin Service and the WWW
service to my local user and my domain user without a problem.

Mike

-Original Message-
From: kanee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 7:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: IIS QUESTION


Because here my quest is not to make logs available to webtrends, I know
webtrends can get the logs from any where. My main objective is to store the
iis logs on a different server than the web server because we are hurting for
disk space. So I was saying if I cannot figure out a way to make iis log
directly to the logfile server I will just let iis write to the local server
and then move the logs to the logfile server nightly using a batch file and
then would point webtrends to the logfile server. thanks

-Original Message-
From: Kevin Lundy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 3:58 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: IIS QUESTION


DUDE - I did read the whole thread.  What it appears you are trying to
accomplish is getting IIS to log everything to a mapped drive or UNC path -
if your web sites are so high traffic as you claim, you wouldn't want to
incur the network overhead of doing that.  So then YOU SAID, and I quote I
am thinking of just writing them to the local disk and then copy them to the
logfile server every night with a batch file before the webtrends prog runs
to analyse the logs.  I just pointed out that you don't need to write a
batch file - which if you knew you didn't need to write a batch file, why did
you say you would write a batch file.

Yes, I have ideas.

-Original Message-
From: kanee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 3:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: IIS QUESTION


dude read thw whole message before answering..not trying to be rude.i
know i dont need a batch file for web trends..if you read my entire problem
you would have known what i was trying to accomplish, if you have any ideas
for my problem i will appreciate it.

thx

-Original Message-
From: Kevin Lundy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 3:44 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: IIS QUESTION


Webtrends can simply retrieve the log files, you don't need to write a batch
file.

You might also want to move this discussion over to
http://www.15seconds.com/listserv.htm, an IIS5 list where it is more on
topic.  Also, if this is a public website, I would not have them as member
servers of your internal domain

-Original Message-
From: kanee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 3:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: IIS QUESTION


i cannot take that risk that comes along with the odbc logging i thought
about it, these are highly visible websites in my organisation and a lot of
traffic.

I am thinking of just writing them to the local disk and then copy them to
the logfile server every night with a batch file before the webtrends prog
runs to analyse the logs.

thx

-Original Message-
From: Felicity Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 3:38 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: IIS QUESTION


Why can't you log to an ODBC datasource.  This is not as performant as
logging to  a file.

IIS runs under the local system account.  The documentation you are reading
must be incorrect.

A note on IIS Logging.  This is a high performance asynchronous process. So
entries are flushed to disk when processor cycles permit.  ODBC logging will
degrade performance on your server as it is more of a synchronous process and
as such prone to locking.

I suggest you write to disk and then use a perl script to merge the log
files.

--Felicity


 Here is the scenario. i have serverA, serverB and SERVERC(LOG FILE =
 SERVER)
 
 I need to redirect all the websites log files from serverA and ServerB

 = to serverC.
 
 In IIS5.0 when you go into the logfile properties and try to change
 the = patch to a mapped drive it clearly says mapped drives and UNC 
 paths are = not supported. But in winNT4.0 it is supported. So i go 
 into the logfile = properties on serverA and serverB and change the 
 logfile path from = %systemroot%\system32\logfiles to 
 f:\logfiles(mapped drive to serverC) = it accepts the path but records

 event id:2 cannot create folder and = cannot write to drive errors. I
 looked it up and the article says that = IIS will write logfiles with 
 the logged on username meaning the account = you use for iisadmin 
 service account and if that account doesnt have = rights on the path 
 it will try and use the system account. When i go to = serverA and 
 serverB and look at the iis admin service it is using the = system 
 account and i am trying to change it to my account but the = options 
 are dimmed out meaning i cannot change the service account from = 
 system to m y user id. I tried this hoping that if i use my user id as

 = the service account then my account has 

RE: Product Support Services - Microsoft Security Bulletin -MS02 -025

[Mike Carlson]

I needed a reboot. It actually failed to stop some services in the beginning
and then failed to start the same services at the end. Rebooting resolved all
the issues and it seems to be running fine.

Mike

-Original Message-
From: Mikael Andersson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 1:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Product Support Services - Microsoft Security Bulletin -MS02
-025


Microsoft have written in their Security Bulletin MS02-25 that no reboot is
needed. Anyone who have succeed to apply the patch with no reboot?


-Original Message-
From: Dan Bartley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: den 30 maj 2002 02:41
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Product Support Services - Microsoft Security Bulletin -MS02
-025


In my case I did apply to a test server first. I got could not stop
msexchangesa and could not restart iisadmin services. Not a problem, I
stopped the Exchange services manually, it requires a reboot anyway so
restarting at time of install is not important.

I've had similar services stopping and starting issues with every Exchange
patch for E2k. That's why I test first. So far, 4 hours into it, no
performance problems or loss of services on the test box. That's the
important part. If it continues to be ok under load then I will apply it to a
production server, after stopping all services manually first (something I
learned to do as far back as 4.0).

The important part is that I know what to expect when I apply the patch in
production and that makes for a smooth transition and minimum downtime.

Best Regards, 
Dan Bartley

-Original Message-
From: MS Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 17:30
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Product Support Services - Microsoft Security Bulletin -MS02
-025

Hoooya!

-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Posted At: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 1:06 PM
Posted To: MS Exchange Discussions
Conversation: Product Support Services - Microsoft Security Bulletin -MS02
-025
Subject: RE: Product Support Services - Microsoft Security Bulletin -MS02
-025


Customers are advised to review the bulletin and *test* and deploy the patch
in their environments, if applicable


-Original Message-
From: MS Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 4:00 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Product Support Services - Microsoft Security Bulletin -
MS02-025


Patch was unable to restart 'msexchangesa' and 'msexchangeis' automatically.
Rebooted and all appears to be fine.  

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Posted At: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 12:13 PM
Posted To: MS Exchange Discussions
Conversation: Product Support Services - Microsoft Security Bulletin -
MS02-025
Subject: Product Support Services - Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-025


Title: Malformed Mail Attribute can Cause Exchange 2000 to Exhaust CPU
Resources (Q320436)

Date: May 29, 2002

Software: Microsoft Exchange 2000

Impact: Denial of Service

Maximum Severity Rating: Critical

Bulletin: MS02-025

The Microsoft Security Response Center has released Microsoft Security
Bulletin MS02-025

What Is It?

The Microsoft Security Response Center has released Microsoft Security
Bulletin MS02-025 which concerns a vulnerability found in Microsoft Exchange
2000. Customers are advised to review the bulletin and test and deploy the
patch in their environments, if applicable

More information is now available at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-025.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-025.asp 

If you have any questions regarding the patch or its implementation after
reading the above listed bulletin you should contact Product Support Services
in the United States at 1-866-PCSafety (1-866-727-2338). International
customers should contact their local subsidiary.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Save
30% on Web addresses! Get with the times, get a web site. Share information,
pictures, your hobby, or start a business. Great names are still available-
get yours before someone else does!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/XmK3jA/nFGEAA/sXBHAA/8vOslB/TM
-~-

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



_
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:   

OWA and non standard port

[Mike Carlson]

Due to firewall configuration I had to configure OWA to use a port other than
80 and it returns the error:
 
Error Unknown -2147467259
 
I found this article in th KB:
 
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q313932
 
Does anyone have the fix that article talks about or know of a work around?
Everything works fine except I can see the public folders.
 
Thanks,
Mike
.+-¦‹-Šx
m¶ŸÿÃ,Â)Ür‰¿­ë(º·ýì\…öª†Ù€­Èb½ë!¶Úÿ0³
§‘ÊþÈ­zǚ­È±æ«r¬¥:.žË›±Êâm隊[h•æ¯yì\…©àz[,Ã)är‰„ÅÈZž‹ŠËZvh§–+-iÙ¢žÌ2žG(

RE: MDAC on Exchange

[Mike Carlson]

The latest version of MDAC doesnt come with any of the JET drivers, you could
try that:
 
http://www.microsoft.com/data/download.htm
 
MDAC 2.7 RTM does not include Microsoft Jet, the Microsoft Jet OLE DB
Provider, the Desktop Database Drivers ODBC Driver, or the Visual FoxPro ODBC
driver. See Knowledge Base article Q271908 for more information. 
 
Mike

-Original Message- 
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thu 3/14/2002 8:57 AM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: MDAC on Exchange



The monitoring solution that they are pushing here has a requirement
to add
MDAC (v 2.1.2 or higher) to the Exchange (5.5 - SP4) servers in order
for
the agent to work properly. Has anyone else installed MDAC or is
anyone
aware of any information of why this is a bad idea? My largest
concern is
the changes to the JET ODBC driver and driver manager, but I have yet
to
find anything official that comes out and states that this is not a
good
idea.

Any thoughts, comments or URL's would be appreciated.





_
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]


â²Úh²Ø§€P†Ûiÿü0Â̝Ç(›úÞ²‹«qïÞÅÈ_j¨m˜
܆+Þ²m§ÿðÃ0Êy¢oìŠ×¬yªÜ‡ûj·!jÊS¢éì¹»®Þ™¨¥¶‰^j÷žÅÈZž¥²Ì2žG(˜L\…©àx¸¬µ§fŠyb²Öš)ìÃ)är‰

RE: OWA and non standard port

[Mike Carlson]

Its a home test box. It is not production. I didnt really want to spend an
hour on the phone. If it was a critical business box, I would not have posted
to a mail list to get a fix/work around. I would have been on the phone a
week ago when I moved OWA to a different port and discovered the problem.
 
Mike

-Original Message- 
From: Matt Monteleone-Haught [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thu 3/14/2002 9:24 AM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: OWA and non standard port



Call PSS.  Just like the article says.  If the 'fix' corrects the
problem,
normally you won't be charged for the call.  Even if you are charged,
isn't
it worth it?  What other option do you have, just leave the box
broken?
YMMV

--
Matt
- Original Message -
From: Mike Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:32 AM
Subject: OWA and non standard port


 Due to firewall configuration I had to configure OWA to use a port
other
than
 80 and it returns the error:

 Error Unknown -2147467259

 I found this article in th KB:

 http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q313932

 Does anyone have the fix that article talks about or know of a work
around?
 Everything works fine except I can see the public folders.

 Thanks,
 Mike
 .+--x
m ,) r(뺷 \ bí¹¨í¶½!  0  zǚȱr櫬:.˛ m隊[hy \z[, )r䉄
ZZvh˧+-i٢2̞G(


_
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]


.+-¦‹-Šx
m¶ŸÿÃ,Â)Ür‰¿­ë(º·ýì\…öª†Ù€­Èb½ë!¶Úÿ0³
§‘ÊþÈ­zǚ­È±æ«r¬¥:.žË›±Êâm隊[h•æ¯yì\…©àz[,Ã)är‰„ÅÈZž‹ŠËZvh§–+-iÙ¢žÌ2žG(

RE: OWA and non standard port

[Mike Carlson]

I use it for developing Outlook applications. Some of the things I work on
require Exchange.
 
Mike 

-Original Message- 
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thu 3/14/2002 9:38 AM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: OWA and non standard port



I presume you are testing it for use in the production environment?
This is the BEST time to call PSS, so it will work when you go live
with it.


-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 10:29 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA and non standard port


Its a home test box. It is not production. I didnt really want to
spend an
hour on the phone. If it was a critical business box, I would not
have
posted
to a mail list to get a fix/work around. I would have been on the
phone a
week ago when I moved OWA to a different port and discovered the
problem.

Mike

-Original Message-
From: Matt Monteleone-Haught [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thu 3/14/2002 9:24 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: Re: OWA and non standard port
   
   

Call PSS.  Just like the article says.  If the 'fix' corrects
the
problem,
normally you won't be charged for the call.  Even if you are
charged,
isn't
it worth it?  What other option do you have, just leave the
box
broken?
YMMV
   
--
Matt
- Original Message -
From: Mike Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:32 AM
Subject: OWA and non standard port
   
   
 Due to firewall configuration I had to configure OWA to use
a port
other
than
 80 and it returns the error:

 Error Unknown -2147467259

 I found this article in th KB:


http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q313932

 Does anyone have the fix that article talks about or know
of a
work
around?
 Everything works fine except I can see the public folders.

 Thanks,
 Mike
 .+--x
m ,) r(뺷 \ bí¹¨í¶½!  0  zǚȱr櫬:.˛ m隊[hy \z[, 
)r䉄
ZZvh˧+-i٢2̞G(
   
   

_
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]
   

.+--x
m ,)r(ື
\檆b=!6 0 ৑zǚ1r,:.˛
m隊[hy\z[,)rɄZZvh'+-i٢2G(


-
-
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.


=
=


_
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]


ŠËi¢Ëbž
@Bm§ÿðÃ0Šw¢oëzÊ.­Ç¿{!}ª¡¶`+r¯zÈm¶ŸÿÃ
,Ã)är‰¿²+^±æ«rìyªÜ…«)N‹§²æìr¸›zf¢–Ú%y«Þ{!jx–Ë0Êy¢a1r§ââ²Öš)åŠËZvh§³§‘Ê

Chat

[Mike Carlson]

Is there a way in ESM to see any chat rooms that were created on the fly? I
only see the ones I created using ESM, but I cannot see any rooms that were
create using /join to a room that doesn't exists yet.

Thanks,


Mike Carlson
http://www.domitianx.com
[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: System Manager for XP Pro?

[Mike Carlson]

My understanding is that you need to install the 2K adminpak, install it even
tho it warns about not being compatible. Then install ESM, then install .Net
adminpak.

ESM will not install unless the 2k tools are there. Then the net tools
should overwrite the 2k tools after you install ESM.


Mike Carlson
http://www.domitianx.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

-Original Message-
From: Lefkovics, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 7:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: System Manager for XP Pro?


I believe you still get the error, but it will install.

I am certainly open to correction.  

William

-Original Message-
From: Dan Bartley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 5:28 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: System Manager for XP Pro?


Hmm. I installed the adminpak.msi from Windows.NET beta3 on XP Pro and I
still get the You need to have Windows 2000 Administration Tools error when
I try to install Exchange2000 ESM. I even did it 3 times.

Am I missing something?

Dan Bartley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 20:23
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: System Manager for XP Pro?

Say that three times fast:

Deploy the adminpak.msi from Windows.net beta3 on XP Pro, then install the
Exchange2000 ESM Deploy the adminpak.msi from Windows.net beta3 on XP Pro,
then install the Exchange2000 ESM Deploy the adminpak.msi from Windows.net
beta3 on XP Pro, then install the Exchange2000 ESM



-Original Message-
From: Lefkovics, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 8:18 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: System Manager for XP Pro?


I believe this is currently unsupported.

Some people have successfully deployed the adminpak.msi from Windows.net
beta3 on XP Pro, then installed the Exchange2000 ESM, but this is also not
supported.

William Lefkovics, MCSE, A+

-Original Message-
From: Fred W. Macondray Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 2:58 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: System Manager for XP Pro?


Hi All,

Anyone know if there is a version of Exchange Manager for Windows XP
Professional?

I tried doing the install from the Exchange 2000 CD but it warns of needing
the Windows 2000 Support Tools.

I do have the Admin Tools for XP installed, but obviously that's not enough.

Thanks,
Fred

Fred Macondray
Systems Administrator
Virtual Purchase Card, Inc.
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]


--
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.


==


_
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: Oh crap. Need to change service account password.

[Mike Carlson]

They cant be educated.
 
I had a manager one time use a phrase, when questioned about his traning in a
particular subject, that nailed it on the head:
 
I cant read or write, but I can trace like no ones business.
 
I think that phrase fits just about all managers I have ever had.
 
~!Mike

-Original Message- 
From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tue 1/15/2002 9:24 AM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: Oh crap. Need to change service account password.



I can dig it, but it's part of your job to educate all management
types.  :)

-Original Message-
From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 9:14 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Oh crap. Need to change service account password.


I don't use the service account.  But my super knows all the domain
admin
passwords and it was he that gave it out to a bunch of the helpdesk
people.
I have one backup that knows what to do and how to behave, and I have
a
person that creates accounts for me but her rights are trimmed.

Basically this whole problems boils down to the extreme stupidity of
my
supervisor.

-Original Message-
From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 7:14 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Oh crap. Need to change service account password.


That's one of the articles.  You didn't say how you are setup though.


One thing that jumps out at me though is that you should never be
using the
service account anyway.  Systems use the service account; people use
logon
accounts that have privileges.

Also you should be training [1] your admins to quit deleting
mailboxes.
Mailboxes should be hidden for an appropriate amount of time before
being
deleted from the Hidden view.

[1] Or beating them with the StIcK, you choose.

-Original Message-
From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 9:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Oh crap. Need to change service account password.


Would that be q157780?

-Original Message-
From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 7:00 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Oh crap. Need to change service account password.


There is a technet whitepaper - get it, read it, read it again.
There could
be many gotchas depending on your Org and site setup. 

-Original Message-
From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 8:50 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Oh crap. Need to change service account password.



You know some days I really like this job, and other days I really
hate it.

Apparently my boss in his infinite wisdom decided it would be wise to
give a
bunch of people that know nothing about Exchange the service account
password.  A result of this was the deletion of several mailboxes and
one
IMS connector.  Needless to say I was nowhere around at the time,
perhaps if
I had been I would have been able to put a stop to this.  So it looks
like I
need to change my service account password and not tell my boss what
it is.

So I'm making a checklist of where the password gets used.  Obviously
all
the MS Exchange services.  Is there any other place where I will need
to
type in the new password?  Any other concerns I should have in doing
this?

Help most appreciated.

Thanks
Eric

_
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
  

RE: You sent a message with obscene wording

[Mike Carlson]

I got the same thing.
 
~!Mike

-Original Message- 
From: MAILsweeper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tue 1/15/2002 9:26 AM 
To: Mike Carlson 
Cc: Postmaster 
Subject: You sent a message with obscene wording



OBSCENE MESSAGE FROM [EMAIL PROTECTED] ON
15-Jan-2002 15:29:23.00 RE RE: Oh crap.  Need to change service
account
password. TO
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

---

Your message entitled

RE: Oh crap.  Need to change service account password.

has been blocked due to obscene or offensive wording.

The message was originally sent to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

---

This message has been saved for review
Continued abuse of the system may result in action being taken
For more information contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---
 body.txt



_
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]

Question

[Mike Carlson]

Is it possible to create a custom read receipt?

Thanks,


Mike Carlson
http://www.domitianx.com
[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: High Physical Memory Utilization

[Mike Carlson]

One time. In band camp...


Mike Carlson
http://www.domitianx.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:49 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


I once had 1000 users as well. But it was in Egypt. I was running the
messaging system for the pyramid building project. We were running Glyphmail
1.5. Talk about a PITA. My server was made out of solid stone. Someone would
hammer a message into a sheet of sandstone. Then lay it on the server. Then
50 guys would carry the whole server to the recipient. We were supposed to
have 200 guys, but there was a mass killing of the slaves that year and we
had to make due.

Done even get me started on disaster recovery!

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:24 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


I once had about 1,000 users with a 70GB store running on a dual Pentium Pro
200MHz ProLiant system that had only 256MB RAM.  It worked fine.  We had to
run that way because the box came with missing memory.  We didn't upgrade the
memory (to 768MB) for a few weeks.

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 Don Ely
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 6:38 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


Typically, I don't think you have a friggin clue about what you're talking
about.  I've had a 20gb+ store on a box running with 512MB of RAM.  It worked
just fine...

D

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


Typically if you have a 4 gig priv.edb your Memory Utilization is going to be
around 800-900 Meg.  Obviously this number would fluctuate based on the
numbers of users connected to the system.  The amount of mail moving back and
forth through the database on 4000 users there is no way your running 1 gig
of ram unless your strickly speaking of an smtp relay box.

-Original Message-
From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:19 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


I have 4000 users running off of less then a Gig or ram. And almost a gig
Page file. How many users you planning maintaining?

Milton R Dogg
Of The Dogg Foundation..



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


400 Mailboxes and 1 gig of Ram does not sound right.  Your primary problem is
hardware.

This is my minimum recommendation for your hardware requirements.

Dual Pentium III 550 +
Separate Raid Controller running in Raid 5 config.  (2 partitions
logical) 2 Gig physical memory. 3 Gig Page File on second partition Run
optimizer and move the databases and log files to 2nd partition.


-Original Message-
From: Frazer J Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:09 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: High Physical Memory Utilization


One of my colleagues recently reinstalled a 5.5 SP4 Exchange Server on NT4
SP5 (only Exchange was reinstalled) and have noticed that the Physical Memory
Utilization sits at around 99% (prior to the rebuild it was around 60%).  The
server has about 400 mailboxes on it and has 1Gb of physical memory and 1Gb
page file.  It is the same spec as 4 other servers in the site which all sit
at around 60% utilization.  As it is a 24x7 service we offer on our server,
down time is very limited.  Is there any way I can check the performance
optimizer settings without stopping the store? Or are there any other
pointers that anyone can think of I can check?



_
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]



_

Do You Yahoo!?

Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




_
List posting FAQ:   http

RE: Solicitation

[Mike Carlson]

This may be a real dumb question, but how do disable anonymous LDAP access to
the Exchange Server? I did not see that option anywhere in E2k.

Thanks,


Mike Carlson
http://www.domitianx.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Solicitation



It would be the exchange server that the LDAP protocol is running on that you
want to hit. ~
-K.Borndale
Network Administrator
Sybari Software
631.630.8569 -direct dial
631.439.0689 -fax
http://www.sybari.com
One man's ceiling is another man's floor


|+---
||  Blunt, James H (Jim)   |
||  [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
||  Sent by: |
||  bounce-exchange-148870@ls|
||  .swynk.com   |
||   |
||   |
||  01/10/2002 12:44 PM  |
||  Please respond to|
||  Exchange Discussions   |
||   |
|+---
 

-|
  |
|
  |  To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
  |  cc:
|
  |  Subject: RE: Solicitation
|
 

-|




Andy,

By ldap://yourexchangeserver, I'm assuming you mean the name of your OWA
server, correct?  Not the name of your BE Exchange server?

Jim Blunt

-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 5:57 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Solicitation


Just type :
ldap://yourexchangeserver in your browser...


-Original Message-
From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 8:50 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Solicitation


Hi there

At the risk of sounding stupid, how do you do this? I would like to know how
this is done so I can prevent this on my own network.

Thanks

Russell

-Original Message-
From: Jennifer Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 5:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Solicitation


Yikes, I see your whole address book.  No firewall, eh?

-Original Message-
From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 14:46
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Solicitation


Hi

On a system that is Exchange 5.5 sp4hot and 2k sp2hot, and also relay secure,
is there a way for someone to scan my site for all the email addresses?

In the last 48 hours many many users in the company have seen a RASH of
solicitaiton emails.  I have blocked the home servers and IP's for most of
them but I am concerend how these solicitation agencies got a hold of all
these addresses.  Most of these addresses arent things we have published on a
web site or anywhere.

Maybe they got it out of the public access for OWA but that would take a lot
of work cause OWA limits the number of addresses it will display at a given
time.

Ideas?

E-

_
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 message is private or privileged.  If you are not the person for whom
this message is intended, please delete it and notify me immediately, and
please do not copy or send this message to anyone else.



_
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]



--
The information

RE: Solicitation

[Mike Carlson]

I have a firewall. I have no pre windows 2000 anything. Everything is in
native mode. I am asking the question out of curiosity not to fix something.


Mike Carlson
http://www.domitianx.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

-Original Message-
From: Jennifer Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Solicitation


Buy a cheap firewall. Or remove the everyone group from pre-windows 2000
compatibility group which will break your pre-w2k clients.

-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:04 AM
To: Baker, Jennifer
Subject: RE: Solicitation


Well then.

How does one turn off anonymous LDAP access in AD?

=p


Mike Carlson
http://www.domitianx.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:49 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Solicitation


E2K isn't an LDAP server. AD on the other hand

Chris
-- 
Chris Scharff
Senior Sales Engineer
MessageOne
If you can't measure, you can't manage! 


 -Original Message-
 From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:59 AM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Solicitation
 
 
 This may be a real dumb question, but how do disable anonymous LDAP 
 access to the Exchange Server? I did not see that option anywhere in 
 E2k.
 
 Thanks,
 
 
 Mike Carlson
 http://www.domitianx.com
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:01 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Solicitation
 
 
 
 It would be the exchange server that the LDAP protocol is running on 
 that you want to hit. ~
 -K.Borndale
 Network Administrator
 Sybari Software
 631.630.8569 -direct dial
 631.439.0689 -fax
 http://www.sybari.com
 One man's ceiling is another man's floor
 
 
 |+---
 ||  Blunt, James H (Jim)   |
 ||  [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
 ||  Sent by: |
 ||  bounce-exchange-148870@ls|
 ||  .swynk.com   |
 ||   |
 ||   |
 ||  01/10/2002 12:44 PM  |
 ||  Please respond to|
 ||  Exchange Discussions   |
 ||   |
 |+---
  
 -
 --
 -
 -|
   |
 |
   |  To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |
   |  cc:
 |
   |  Subject: RE: Solicitation
 |
  
 -
 --
 -
 -|
 
 
 
 
 Andy,
 
 By ldap://yourexchangeserver, I'm assuming you mean the name of your 
 OWA server, correct?  Not the name of your BE Exchange server?
 
 Jim Blunt
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 5:57 AM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Solicitation
 
 
 Just type :
 ldap://yourexchangeserver in your browser...
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 8:50 AM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Solicitation
 
 
 Hi there
 
 At the risk of sounding stupid, how do you do this? I would like to 
 know how this is done so I can prevent this on my own network.
 
 Thanks
 
 Russell
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Jennifer Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 5:55 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Solicitation
 
 
 Yikes, I see your whole address book.  No firewall, eh?
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 14:46
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: Solicitation
 
 
 Hi
 
 On a system that is Exchange 5.5 sp4hot and 2k sp2hot, and also relay 
 secure, is there a way for someone to scan my site for all the email 
 addresses?
 
 In the last 48 hours many many users in the company have seen a RASH 
 of solicitaiton emails.  I have blocked the home servers and IP's for 
 most of them but I am concerend how these solicitation agencies got a 
 hold of all these addresses.  Most of these addresses arent things we 
 have published on a web site or anywhere.
 
 Maybe they got it out of the public access for OWA but that would take 
 a lot of work cause OWA limits the number of addresses it will display 
 at a given time

RE: Solicitation

[Mike Carlson]

So... Since no one seems to want to share this super secret information on
turning off anonymous LDAP, am I to assume that it is something as simple
like disabling the guest account?

BTW: when I try ldap://server I get an error returned saying that An error
occurred while performing the search. You computer, your ISP, or the
specified directory service may be disconnected. Check you connections and
try again.

What does that error indicate?


Mike Carlson
http://www.domitianx.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

-Original Message-
From: Jennifer Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:15 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Solicitation


Well the second part was a wild guess, so good.

-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:13 AM
To: Baker, Jennifer
Subject: RE: Solicitation


I have a firewall. I have no pre windows 2000 anything. Everything is in
native mode. I am asking the question out of curiosity not to fix something.


Mike Carlson
http://www.domitianx.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

-Original Message-
From: Jennifer Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Solicitation


Buy a cheap firewall. Or remove the everyone group from pre-windows 2000
compatibility group which will break your pre-w2k clients.

-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:04 AM
To: Baker, Jennifer
Subject: RE: Solicitation


Well then.

How does one turn off anonymous LDAP access in AD?

=p


Mike Carlson
http://www.domitianx.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:49 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Solicitation


E2K isn't an LDAP server. AD on the other hand

Chris
-- 
Chris Scharff
Senior Sales Engineer
MessageOne
If you can't measure, you can't manage! 


 -Original Message-
 From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:59 AM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Solicitation
 
 
 This may be a real dumb question, but how do disable anonymous LDAP
 access to the Exchange Server? I did not see that option anywhere in 
 E2k.
 
 Thanks,
 
 
 Mike Carlson
 http://www.domitianx.com
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:01 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Solicitation
 
 
 
 It would be the exchange server that the LDAP protocol is running on
 that you want to hit. ~
 -K.Borndale
 Network Administrator
 Sybari Software
 631.630.8569 -direct dial
 631.439.0689 -fax
 http://www.sybari.com
 One man's ceiling is another man's floor
 
 
 |+---
 ||  Blunt, James H (Jim)   |
 ||  [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
 ||  Sent by: |
 ||  bounce-exchange-148870@ls|
 ||  .swynk.com   |
 ||   |
 ||   |
 ||  01/10/2002 12:44 PM  |
 ||  Please respond to|
 ||  Exchange Discussions   |
 ||   |
 |+---
  
 -
 --
 -
 -|
   |
 |
   |  To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |
   |  cc:
 |
   |  Subject: RE: Solicitation
 |
  
 -
 --
 -
 -|
 
 
 
 
 Andy,
 
 By ldap://yourexchangeserver, I'm assuming you mean the name of your
 OWA server, correct?  Not the name of your BE Exchange server?
 
 Jim Blunt
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 5:57 AM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Solicitation
 
 
 Just type :
 ldap://yourexchangeserver in your browser...
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 8:50 AM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Solicitation
 
 
 Hi there
 
 At the risk of sounding stupid, how do you do this? I would like to
 know how this is done so I can prevent this on my own network.
 
 Thanks
 
 Russell
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Jennifer Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 5:55 PM
 To: Exchange

OWA and UTF-8

[Mike Carlson]

I am having a problem with Exchange 2k SP 2 and OWA. Occasionally when I reply to a 
message the recipient receives gobbly goop, which looks like it is encrytped or UTF-8. 
I am using OWA over SSL.

This only happens with OWA and usually only when I reply.

Example:

 i 0  z+Ё$͕ ȁձѥqͥѕ́ ѡā%@ɕ  M ȁAՉ͡4)! ! ѡ%%L 4(4)]Ё 䁱ЁI   
ѥѥ4(4) ԁ āȁ
ɔ4(4)Qᅹ̰4)44(4($䴴=ɥ5 4(%ɽ)聥! ͽmѼ驥
͠ɝt4(%M ɤ  44(%Qm%M 
 ȹɜ͍ ͥ1
t4(%4(%M  mͅ tIA ͡4($4($4(4(%   ܹ%M͕ ȹɜ4($4($4($ĸЁɕ  ѕɥѼ
ɽ ѡɕ  
4($ Ёɕ  ѕɥѼ
ѕЁ ȁݕ͕  4($̸= ɹ%@Ѽ͕ չѕݕͥѕ̀ ѕѕ٥4(Ĥ4($Ȥ4($иЁɕ   ȁ 
ѥѥ4($4(%)! ͽ4(%5@9Pа\,ɤ9
ɬA4(%  ͕ͅ ȹɜ   ͽ4(%Iѡ4($4($=ɥ5 4(%ɽ耉5ɱͽ񑽵ѥ
ᑽѥํ4(%Q 
m%M͕ ȹɜ͍ ͥ1 t  
íŸ†íµ•


̹4(%M Q聡 ͑䰁Ȁ 4(%M  mͅ tAՉ͡4($4($4(%   ܹ%M͕ ȹɜ4($4($4(%]Ё$ 
ͥ] ͡ M ȁ
͡4)ȁݕ4(%͕  4($4(%% ɕ䁅她Ѽٔ䁱́ɽѡͅU ͼ$4)4(%ѥݕ ́͡ѡ݅ 
4($4(%Q̰4($4($4(%5ɱͽ4(%
ܹѥํ4(%ѥ
ᑽѥํ4($4($4($4(%eԁɔ ɕѱ Չ͍ɥѼѡ́%M͕ ȹɜ͍ ͥ1 4) 
4(%
͠ɜ4(%Qչ ͍ɥ͕Ѽ4)ٔͅ

ݕ ̹4($4($4($4($4(%eԁɔ ɕѱ Չ͍ɥѼѡ́%M͕ ȹɜ͍ ͥ1 4) 
Ñ¥
ᑽѥํ4(%Qչ ͍ɥ͕Ѽ4)ٔͅ
ݕ
̹4($4(4(
jÙ²ry ! z+Ë¢rֲڞ Ë¢ Nʋ rzǧujy器^jí½‹í±©bݸ:+ 㮛zX(



Mike Carlson
http://www.domitianx.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None
 
â²Úh²Ø§€P†Ûiÿü0Â̝Ç(›úÞ²‹«qïÞÅÈ_j¨m˜
܆+Þ²m§ÿðÃ0Êy¢oìŠ×¬yªÜ‡ûj·!jÊS¢éì¹»®Þ™¨¥¶‰^j÷žÅÈZž¥²Ì2žG(˜L\…©àx¸¬µ§fŠyb²Öš)ìÃ)är‰

RE: Exchange CALs

[Mike Carlson]

Check out my post about OWA Exchange 2k.
 
I have no sig and I have no virus software running.
 
Mike

-Original Message- 
From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wed 12/19/2001 2:32 AM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: Mike Carlson 
Subject: RE: Exchange CALs



My guess is that he's using OWA on Exchange 2000, and the 'crud' is
actually a disclaimer appended by a 3rd party program (possibly Trend
VirusWall).

Mike - how are we doing?

Neil


-Original Message-
From: Benjamin Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: 18 December 2001 19:22
Posted To: Exchange Mailing List
Conversation: Exchange CALs
Subject: RE: Exchange CALs


My guess is that he is using some funky font in his sig that isn't
normally installed.  With of course, Word as his e-mail editor.  How'm I
doing, Mike? Close?

Ben Winzenz, MCSE
Network/Systems Administrator
Peregrine Systems, Inc.


-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 1:44 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange CALs

What is that crud in your sig?

-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 10:38 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange CALs


How exactly does the Exchange 2000 CALs work? If all my clients will be
using Outlook, will I need to buy CALs for them also or does Outlook
give me the CAL for the user?

Thanks,
Mike
.+--x
m
,)r(캷
\b䀽!ᢶ
0
৑zǚ1r濬:.˛
m隊[hy
\z[,)rɄZ Zvh'+-i٢2G(

_
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]
NxƢj|Whpꊊbr鉉߉קjwbקulW奥   +⢢دۚ0憆+uǝ|(ꮊb*'ޱ  
yÖ«z%z\í­­ay톊ڝhgyǬ*㋪z{mݲڟ*,é¹¹v   
zʋjyᤈm+1訨wɕy'嵵-hBbjɼzWޢ}5M緷M4ȝViu吨$)oz⢢ 犊ib螞
@Bm 
0ꊊwoz.ǿ{!}`+rzm涶 ,)r+^ry܅)Nrzf%y뫫{!jx斖0睷ya1r֝)ŊZvh 

.+-¦‹-Šx
m¶ŸÿÃ,Â)Ür‰¿­ë(º·ýì\…öª†Ù€­Èb½ë!¶Úÿ0³
§‘ÊþÈ­zǚ­È±æ«r¬¥:.žË›±Êâm隊[h•æ¯yì\…©àz[,Ã)är‰„ÅÈZž‹ŠËZvh§–+-iÙ¢žÌ2žG(

RE: Blocking certain email addresses

[Mike Carlson]

How true. I am sure the solitations I get for exciting adult entertainment and 
appendage growth pills from [EMAIL PROTECTED] are not legitimate.
 
=)

-Original Message- 
From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wed 12/19/2001 9:47 AM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: Blocking certain email addresses



Sure, but be aware that 99.999% of them are spoofed.  Heck, my 10 and 12
year olds spoofed an smtp mail recently using bored.com.  My husband
freaked, so we told them not to do that anymore.

-Original Message-
From: Phil Labonte [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 7:59 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Blocking certain email addresses


Exchange 5.5 SP4, NT4 SP6a

I am getting some spam from a particular email address recently and I wanted
to know where I can block certain email addresses from getting through the
exchange server.
Can I block email from certain originating email addresses?

Thanks.



_

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]


ŠËi¢Ëbž
@Bm§ÿðÃ0Šw¢oëzÊ.­Ç¿{!}ª¡¶`+r¯zÈm¶ŸÿÃ
,Ã)är‰¿²+^±æ«rìyªÜ…«)N‹§²æìr¸›zf¢–Ú%y«Þ{!jx–Ë0Êy¢a1r§ââ²Öš)åŠËZvh§³§‘Ê

RE: general OoO

[Mike Carlson]

Kim:
 
I dont have an answer to your question, but I do have one. Are you using OWA to send 
this email? If so are you doing so over SSL (https://)?
 
I noticed the strange characters at the end of your message that I occasionally get 
and I am trying to figure out what causes them.
 
Thanks,
Mike

-Original Message- 
From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wed 12/19/2001 10:04 AM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: general OoO



how can I set a return message on the mailserver for EVERY incoming mail
on the server?  (Exch 2K)
Director's orders, not mine...
I'll unsubscribe to this list for that period ;-)
.+x
 耀)r뺷
Ƚ˶ ёzǭȱr:ޞ˱m[yz[)r቉vh֖+i̞ٞG 

ŠËi¢Ëbž
@Bm§ÿðÃ0Šw¢oëzÊ.­Ç¿{!}ª¡¶`+r¯zÈm¶ŸÿÃ
,Ã)är‰¿²+^±æ«rìyªÜ…«)N‹§²æìr¸›zf¢–Ú%y«Þ{!jx–Ë0Êy¢a1r§ââ²Öš)åŠËZvh§³§‘Ê

RE: general OoO test in plain text

[Mike Carlson]

Looks like it.
 
=)

-Original Message- 
From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wed 12/19/2001 10:14 AM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: general OoO test in plain text




curious whether it will be there now...
.
rí½¶à³‘zrmyzr8vi 

.+-¦‹-Šx
m¶ŸÿÃ,Â)Ür‰¿­ë(º·ýì\…öª†Ù€­Èb½ë!¶Úÿ0³
§‘ÊþÈ­zǚ­È±æ«r¬¥:.žË›±Êâm隊[h•æ¯yì\…©àz[,Ã)är‰„ÅÈZž‹ŠËZvh§–+-iÙ¢žÌ2žG(

RE: Blocking certain email addresses

[Mike Carlson]

Apparently science has progressed so far that a pill will give you a three inch growth 
on certain appendages.
 
Well maybe not you perse as I believe it only works for the male species.
 
Science is wonderful.

-Original Message- 
From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wed 12/19/2001 10:03 AM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: Blocking certain email addresses



m
appendage growth pills 

-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 9:52 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Blocking certain email addresses


How true. I am sure the solitations I get for exciting adult entertainment
and appendage growth pills from [EMAIL PROTECTED] are not legitimate.

=)

-Original Message-
From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wed 12/19/2001 9:47 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: RE: Blocking certain email addresses
   
   

Sure, but be aware that 99.999% of them are spoofed.  Heck, my 10
and 12
year olds spoofed an smtp mail recently using bored.com.  My husband
freaked, so we told them not to do that anymore.
   
-Original Message-
From: Phil Labonte [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 7:59 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Blocking certain email addresses
   
   
Exchange 5.5 SP4, NT4 SP6a
   
I am getting some spam from a particular email address recently and
I wanted
to know where I can block certain email addresses from getting
through the
exchange server.
Can I block email from certain originating email addresses?
   
Thanks.
   
   
   
_
   
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]
   

.+--x
m ,)r(ື
\檆b=!6 0 ৑zǚ1r,:.˛
m隊[hy\z[,)rɄZZvh'+-i٢2G(

_
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]


â²Úh²Ø§€P†Ûiÿü0Â̝Ç(›úÞ²‹«qïÞÅÈ_j¨m˜
܆+Þ²m§ÿðÃ0Êy¢oìŠ×¬yªÜ‡ûj·!jÊS¢éì¹»®Þ™¨¥¶‰^j÷žÅÈZž¥²Ì2žG(˜L\…©àx¸¬µ§fŠyb²Öš)ìÃ)är‰

RE: general OoO

[Mike Carlson]

It doesnt happen very often and I notice it usually only happens with a reply or when 
I paste text into the message window. But it does only happen with OWA. I have never 
had the problem with Outlook. I had one message that was just completely pooched. It 
looked like it was encrypted. That only happened once and it was on a Notes list. I 
jokingly chalked that up to OWA sending email to a Notes server.
 
=)

-Original Message- 
From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wed 12/19/2001 10:02 AM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: general OoO



Mike,

We're using Exchange 2000 with OWA over SSL and are getting the same
problem, hence my earlier post in a different thread.  I admit I haven't
looked deeply into it, but I originally thought it was our disclaimer
that was garbled.

Have you tried using different browser versions at all?

Neil

-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: 19 December 2001 15:58
Posted To: Exchange Mailing List
Conversation: general OoO
Subject: RE: general OoO


Kim:

I dont have an answer to your question, but I do have one. Are you using
OWA to send this email? If so are you doing so over SSL (https://)?

I noticed the strange characters at the end of your message that I
occasionally get and I am trying to figure out what causes them.

Thanks,
Mike

-Original Message-
From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wed 12/19/2001 10:04 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: general OoO
   
   

how can I set a return message on the mailserver for EVERY
incoming mail
on the server?  (Exch 2K)
Director's orders, not mine...
I'll unsubscribe to this list for that period ;-)
.+x
 耀)r뺷
Ƚ˶ ёzǭȱr:ޞ˱m[yz[)r቉ vh֖+i̞ٞG

.+x
 )r뺷
Ƚ˶ zǭȱr:˱m[yz[)r  vh+i̞ٞG
Nzfj|WhNJr׶jwu番W   
؉ۖچ+uڲ|퉉쮊*y潮zz\䆆y抝מyDZ*z{*۹v   
zjy捥+wy•꺚вHj†ɼzW}M朠MҊj)גȽjwr.+妦x
 )r뺷
Ƚ˶ 
푑zǭȱr:ޞ˱m瑳[y桴z[)r鉉vh+i̞ٞG

ŠËi¢Ëbž
@Bm§ÿðÃ0Šw¢oëzÊ.­Ç¿{!}ª¡¶`+r¯zÈm¶ŸÿÃ
,Ã)är‰¿²+^±æ«rìyªÜ…«)N‹§²æìr¸›zf¢–Ú%y«Þ{!jx–Ë0Êy¢a1r§ââ²Öš)åŠËZvh§³§‘Ê

RE: SSL and Outlook Web Access

[Mike Carlson]

I use on from http://www.freessl.com and the free one works on everything but the 
latest version of Opera.
 
The first year is free or you can pay $99 I believe to just buy one. The $99 version 
supposed to work on just about everything.
 
~!M

-Original Message- 
From: Grewal, Raj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wed 12/19/2001 10:31 AM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: SSL and Outlook Web Access



Robert,

Do you have an exact product name for the Verisign Certificate that your
company is using??  I am trying to explain what we need from to our vendor,
but they are not understanding.   

Thanks again for your help,

Raj Grewal
MCSE Win2000, MCSE NT 4.0, CNE5, CNA5, CNA4.11, Network+
Senior Network Analyst
Playboy Enterprises, Inc.
(312) 751-8000 Ext. 2084
We Will Meet Again, I Don't Know Where, I Don't Know Why.



-Original Message-
From: Robert Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 11:56 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: SSL and Outlook Web Access


Verisign, $175.

-Original Message-
From: Grewal, Raj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 12:49 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: SSL and Outlook Web Access


Hello,

Right now we have SSL on our Outlook Web Access Server with a CA that I made
in Windows 2000.  There is one issue with it; it is not compatible with the
latest version of IE for the MAC.  Which SSL's do you all use for your
Outlook Web Access Servers???  I know Verisign makes them.  Could you also
give me an idea for price???

Thank You all in Advance,

Raj Grewal
MCSE Win2000, MCSE NT 4.0, CNE5, CNA5, CNA4.11, Network+
Senior Network Analyst
Playboy Enterprises, Inc.
(312) 751-8000
All of your dreams are made of strawberry-lemonade.


_
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]


â²Úh²Ø§€P†Ûiÿü0Â̝Ç(›úÞ²‹«qïÞÅÈ_j¨m˜
܆+Þ²m§ÿðÃ0Êy¢oìŠ×¬yªÜ‡ûj·!jÊS¢éì¹»®Þ™¨¥¶‰^j÷žÅÈZž¥²Ì2žG(˜L\…©àx¸¬µ§fŠyb²Öš)ìÃ)är‰

RE: Lotus Notes Problem

[Mike Carlson]

On a side note to this thread, is there doco on the Lotus Notes
connector and the interaction between Exchange 2k and Lotus Notes?

Thanks,


Mike Carlson
http://www.domitianx.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

-Original Message-
From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 3:32 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Lotus Notes Problem


All,

I have this really weird problem with (I think) our Notes connector.
Ok, we have users in the US and Europe.  WHen we send email to users in
the US they send/receive email just fine.  But if we send them to the
Europe users we get the error message: 

The following recipient(s) could not be reached:
Userslastname, User on 12/19/2001 3:04 PM
The recipient name is not recognized
The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=US;a=
;p=Organization;l=Exchange Server-011219200331Z-12404
MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:Site:Exchange Server

Why would I be able to send email to the US and not the Europe users?

Has anyone experienced this problem before?  Please help if you have
seen this or might know what the problem might be.

Thank you,
___
John Bowles
Exchange Administrator
Enterprise Support  Engineering
Celera Genomics
[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]

Exchange CALs

[Mike Carlson]

How exactly does the Exchange 2000 CALs work? If all my clients will be using Outlook, 
will I need to buy CALs for them also or does Outlook give me the CAL for the user?
 
Thanks,
Mike
â²Úh²Ø§€P†Ûiÿü0Â̝Ç(›úÞ²‹«qïÞÅÈ_j¨m˜
܆+Þ²m§ÿðÃ0Êy¢oìŠ×¬yªÜ‡ûj·!jÊS¢éì¹»®Þ™¨¥¶‰^j÷žÅÈZž¥²Ì2žG(˜L\…©àx¸¬µ§fŠyb²Öš)ìÃ)är‰

RE: Exchange CALs

[Mike Carlson]

If I have bought say 25 copies of Outlook for other reasons, will those work for CALs 
on Exchange?

Mike

-Original Message-

Outlook is essentially free. You get it when you buy Exchange. You need
CALs for Exchange, though.

Rob

-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 1:38 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange CALs


How exactly does the Exchange 2000 CALs work? If all my clients will be
using Outlook, will I need to buy CALs for them also or does Outlook
give me the CAL for the user?

Thanks,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 
ŠËi¢Ëbž
@Bm§ÿðÃ0Šw¢oëzÊ.­Ç¿{!}ª¡¶`+r¯zÈm¶ŸÿÃ
,Ã)är‰¿²+^±æ«rìyªÜ…«)N‹§²æìr¸›zf¢–Ú%y«Þ{!jx–Ë0Êy¢a1r§ââ²Öš)åŠËZvh§³§‘Ê

Exchange Conferencing Server

[Mike Carlson]

Is Exchange Conferencing Server a seperate product or a add on for Exchange 2000?
 
We are looking to implement Exchange Conferencing but we were unsure if it required a 
purchase of Exchange 2000 or if when you bought Conferencing Server it came with a 
license for Exchange?
 
Microsofts website states that Exchange 2k standard is $699 (w/o cals) and 
conferencing is $3999 (w/o cals).
 
If we buy Exchange standard at $699 now, but in 6 months want to implement 
conferencing, will we have to pay another $3999?
 
Mike
 
.+-¦‹-Šx
m¶ŸÿÃ,Â)Ür‰¿­ë(º·ýì\…öª†Ù€­Èb½ë!¶Úÿ0³
§‘ÊþÈ­zǚ­È±æ«r¬¥:.žË›±Êâm隊[h•æ¯yì\…©àz[,Ã)är‰„ÅÈZž‹ŠËZvh§–+-iÙ¢žÌ2žG(

OWA Exchange 2K

[Mike Carlson]

I have OWA running over SSL and every once in a while when sending a new mail, and 95% 
of the time when replying to an email, I get garbled crap in the message.
 
I have no problems from Outlook 2002, just OWA.
 
I have exchange set to only send plain text, I use IE 6 with all the latest patches in 
stalled and both computers I use have Office XP installed.
 
Any ideas?
 
Thanks,
Mike
â²Úh²Ø§€P†Ûiÿü0Â̝Ç(›úÞ²‹«qïÞÅÈ_j¨m˜
܆+Þ²m§ÿðÃ0Êy¢oìŠ×¬yªÜ‡ûj·!jÊS¢éì¹»®Þ™¨¥¶‰^j÷žÅÈZž¥²Ì2žG(˜L\…©àx¸¬µ§fŠyb²Öš)ìÃ)är‰

RE: Exchange Conferencing Server

[Mike Carlson]

So if I get Exchange conferencing server, I dont get Exchange in the 
workgroup/mail/collaboration sense?

Mike

-Original Message- 

From:  Don Ely Subject:  RE: Exchange Conferencing Server   
Conversation:  Exchange Conferencing Server 
Separate beast all together...

D


The secret to success is - find out where the people are going and get
there first. (Mark Twain)

-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 11:16 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange Conferencing Server


Is Exchange Conferencing Server a seperate product or a add on for Exchange
2000?

We are looking to implement Exchange Conferencing but we were unsure if it
required a purchase of Exchange 2000 or if when you bought Conferencing
Server it came with a license for Exchange?

Microsofts website states that Exchange 2k standard is $699 (w/o cals) and
conferencing is $3999 (w/o cals).

If we buy Exchange standard at $699 now, but in 6 months want to implement
conferencing, will we have to pay another $3999?

Mike

 
.+-¦‹-Šx
m¶ŸÿÃ,Â)Ür‰¿­ë(º·ýì\…öª†Ù€­Èb½ë!¶Úÿ0³
§‘ÊþÈ­zǚ­È±æ«r¬¥:.žË›±Êâm隊[h•æ¯yì\…©àz[,Ã)är‰„ÅÈZž‹ŠËZvh§–+-iÙ¢žÌ2žG(

OWA Exchange 2k

[Mike Carlson]

For example, take a look at the end of the email I sent earlier.
 
Mike
 
-Original Message-
 
I have OWA running over SSL and every once in a while when sending a new mail, and 95% 
of the time when replying to an email, I get garbled crap in the message.
I have no problems from Outlook 2002, just OWA.
I have exchange set to only send plain text, I use IE 6 with all the latest patches in 
stalled and both computers I use have Office XP installed.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Mike
.
rí½¶à³‘zrmyzravi 

ŠËi¢Ëbž
@Bm§ÿðÃ0Šw¢oëzÊ.­Ç¿{!}ª¡¶`+r¯zÈm¶ŸÿÃ
,Ã)är‰¿²+^±æ«rìyªÜ…«)N‹§²æìr¸›zf¢–Ú%y«Þ{!jx–Ë0Êy¢a1r§ââ²Öš)åŠËZvh§³§‘Ê

RE: Internet NewsGroups

[Mike Carlson]

I installed it at home so I can play with it. This is not a corporate
environment. I am developing some Outlook forms for a client and I set
up Exchange so I could test the forms and what not.
 
Mike

-Original Message- 
From: kim cameron 
Sent: Wed 11/14/2001 9:57 PM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: Internet NewsGroups



dear Mike,
just for kicks, you might want to read a book about Exchange
before you go
trying to administer it.  here are some recommendations:

http://www.swinc.com/resource/exchange.htm

you didn't stage a coup and oust the real Exchange admin, did
you?


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike
Carlson
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 8:47 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Internet NewsGroups


What is the Internet Newsgroups Public Folder for? Just for
kicks I
tried to post something to it and said Operation Failed.

Thanks,


Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.domitianx.com

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None



_
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]


.+-¦‹-Šx
m¶ŸÿÃ,Â)Ür‰¿­ë(º·ýì\…öª†Ù€­Èb½ë!¶Úÿ0³
§‘ÊþÈ­zǚ­È±æ«r¬¥:.žË›±Êâm隊[h•æ¯yì\…©àz[,Ã)är‰„ÅÈZž‹ŠËZvh§–+-iÙ¢žÌ2žG(

RE: Internet NewsGroups

[Mike Carlson]

It doesnt prevent me from buying a book. I never said I wasnt going to
buy a book. As a matter of fact I am wating for the 2 I ordered to be
shipped from Amazon.
 
I was just replying to her comment about me staging a coup.

-Original Message- 
From: Slinger, Gary 
Sent: Thu 11/15/2001 6:57 AM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: Internet NewsGroups



All of which prevents you from buying a book how?

-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 07:57
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Internet NewsGroups


I installed it at home so I can play with it. This is not a
corporate
environment. I am developing some Outlook forms for a client and
I set up
Exchange so I could test the forms and what not.

Mike

-Original Message-
From: kim cameron
Sent: Wed 11/14/2001 9:57 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: RE: Internet NewsGroups
   
   

dear Mike,
just for kicks, you might want to read a book about
Exchange before
you go
trying to administer it.  here are some recommendations:
   
http://www.swinc.com/resource/exchange.htm
   
you didn't stage a coup and oust the real Exchange
admin, did you?
   
   
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Mike Carlson
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 8:47 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Internet NewsGroups
   
   
What is the Internet Newsgroups Public Folder for? Just
for kicks I
tried to post something to it and said Operation Failed.
   
Thanks,
   

Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.domitianx.com
   
Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None

   
   

_
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]
   

.+--x
m ,)r(ື
\檆b=!6 0 ৑zǚ1r,:.˛
m隊[hy\z[,)rɄZ Zvh'+-i٢2G(


_
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]


â²Úh²Ø§€P†Ûiÿü0Â̝Ç(›úÞ²‹«qïÞÅÈ_j¨m˜
܆+Þ²m§ÿðÃ0Êy¢oìŠ×¬yªÜ‡ûj·!jÊS¢éì¹»®Þ™¨¥¶‰^j÷žÅÈZž¥²Ì2žG(˜L\…©àx¸¬µ§fŠyb²Öš)ìÃ)är‰

RE: Internet NewsGroups

[Mike Carlson]

I have the NNTP service running on the Exchange box. Is it supposed to
link to that?

-Original Message- 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thu 11/15/2001 11:35 AM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Internet NewsGroups




If you are pulling stuff from a news server.  You'll know if you
are.
~
-K.Borndale
Network Administrator
Sybari Software
631.630.8569 -direct dial
631.439.0689 -fax
http://www.sybari.com
One man's ceiling is another man's floor


|+---
||  Mike Carlson   |
||  [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
||  Sent by: |
||  bounce-exchange-148870@ls|
||  .swynk.com   |
||   |
||   |
||  11/14/2001 09:47 PM  |
||  Please respond to|
||  Exchange Discussions   |
||   |
|+---

---
|
  |
|
  |   To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
  |   cc:
|
  |   Subject: Internet NewsGroups
|

---
|




What is the Internet Newsgroups Public Folder for? Just for
kicks I
tried to post something to it and said Operation Failed.

Thanks,


Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.domitianx.com

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None



_
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]


ŠËi¢Ëbž
@Bm§ÿðÃ0Šw¢oëzÊ.­Ç¿{!}ª¡¶`+r¯zÈm¶ŸÿÃ
,Ã)är‰¿²+^±æ«rìyªÜ…«)N‹§²æìr¸›zf¢–Ú%y«Þ{!jx–Ë0Êy¢a1r§ââ²Öš)åŠËZvh§³§‘Ê

RE: Internet NewsGroups

[Mike Carlson]

I am using OWA 2k right now. I am at work and my exchange box is at
home.
 
I did get a bounce back on a message from Internet.com saying it could
not be delivered and the contents of the message was gobbly gook. I get
that on occasion.
 
Mike

-Original Message- 
From: Hatley, Ken 
Sent: Thu 11/15/2001 11:45 AM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: Internet NewsGroups



Is there something I need to change on my end?  Every time
certain people
mail, my rules do not get processed.  All those strange
characters show up
at the bottom and it seems that every time it is coming from OWA
2000.  Mike
do you have OWA 2000? 
I do not have the option to use a public folder, so I filter by
mail sent to
this list, but every time Mike sends something it does not get
processed.  I
have a rule to move these to a specific folder and quit
processing more
rules, I have several of these and I finally send to my 2way
pager if none
of the others match specific criteria.  Not that big a deal, but
when a big
thread opens up that Mike replies to, all subsequent replies go
to my
pager...major pain in the arse.  What's the deal?

Ken Hatley, MCSE
972.997.9261
pager [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 11:34 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Internet NewsGroups

I have the NNTP service running on the Exchange box. Is it
supposed to
link to that?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 11/15/2001 11:35 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: Re: Internet NewsGroups
   
   


If you are pulling stuff from a news server.  You'll
know if you
are.
~
-K.Borndale
Network Administrator
Sybari Software
631.630.8569 -direct dial
631.439.0689 -fax
http://www.sybari.com
One man's ceiling is another man's floor
   
   
|+---
||  Mike Carlson   |
||  [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
||  Sent by: |
||  bounce-exchange-148870@ls|
||  .swynk.com   |
||   |
||   |
||  11/14/2001 09:47 PM  |
||  Please respond to|
||  Exchange Discussions   |
||   |
|+---
   

---

|
  |
|
  |   To: Exchange Discussions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
  |   cc:
|
  |   Subject: Internet NewsGroups
|
   

---

|
   
   
   
   
What is the Internet Newsgroups Public Folder for? Just
for
kicks I
tried to post something to it and said Operation Failed.
   
Thanks,
   

Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.domitianx.com
   
Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None

   
   

_
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: Fax

[Mike Carlson]

I am not looking for anything fancy. I just want the ability to fax out
of Outlook and receive faxes. I get about 2 per year and I send about 5
per year.
 
I was hoping to not spend any money if I dont have to. I may have to
look to something like WinFax.

-Original Message- 
From: Dupler, Craig 
Sent: Thu 11/15/2001 12:54 PM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: Fax



Oh, one other thing.  If someone on the outside of your company
is
sophisticated enough to be able to handle supplemental DTMF
addressing to
cause an inbound fax arriving at your Exchange Server to be
properly routed,
then that person will have access to a digital route, which
basically means
that inbound automatic routing can work, but no one is ever
going to use it.
You can buy the technology, but that does not make it
worthwhile.  Inbound
will have to be manually forwarded.

Fax really is an obsolete technology that is probably less
useful than an
Underwood.

-Original Message-
From: Dupler, Craig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 10:37 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Fax


I agree with both EG's (Exchange goddesses)

Can Exchange act as a fax server?  Not exactly.  Fax's can be
transported by
SMTP as a registered MIME type.  This of course makes the server
blind to
the content, and means that it can be a client issue.  However,
Exchange
Server can also have a FAX service or connector installed.  This
enables the
server itself to drive a modem or high grade telephony board to
either
directly send or receive faxes.  Outbound, MAPI clients (i.e.
Outlook) or
OWA clients can send to a fax recipient using ad hoc addressing,
once the
FAX address type has been created by adding such a service.  Of
course,
permanent fax addressees can be stored in the AD/GAL or the
PAB/CL.
Inbound, is a little trickier.  If the inbound fax has some DTMF
supplemental addressing that maps (insert magic box here) to an
AD/GAL
addressee, then the MTA can deliver it.  Alternately, they can
be routed to
a specific printer, or a specific secretarial addressee for
manual
forwarding.

Several vendors make one of these combination fax connector and
magic box
servers for Exchange.

Microsoft Fax is a client tool.  It is not Exchange Server
aware.  It's been
awhile since I looked at it, but if it can save a document as a
fax file,
then presumably this could be attached to a mail message and the
proper MIME
type would get applied. But as the EG's said, this would be lame
beyond
belief or any human comprehension.  Usually people are
interested in
transmitting digital data and getting non-digital data into some
sort of
intelligible format.  To take a perfectly good digital document,
then store
it as a useless piece of raster junk, and then send it as an
SMTP attachment
to someone that has some sort of a junky raster-only printer,
well, that
would be sad.  So it is hard to imagine a scenario in which
someone would
want to spend money integrating MS Fax to an e-mail service. 

The right way to leverage MS Fax is in a scenario in which you
have a
requirement for a small number of users to send or receive
Faxes, but can't
cost justify the incremental cost of something like OmTool for
Exchange over
the cost of some personal modems.

Some organizations are going to be in a bind with this.  Most
good
enterprise security policies prohibit using a personal modem to
link to an
external connection while at the same time being connected to
the enterprise
network.  Obviously, something like OmTool solves this problem,
but that
does not make the cost story any prettier.

-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 3:58 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Fax


Can Exchange act as a Fax Server? Does it integrate with MS Fax?
I want
to be able to Fax out of Outlook, but I want to avoid  buying
something
like winfax.


Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.domitianx.com

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None

RE: Internet NewsGroups

[Mike Carlson]

No I dont have it hookup up to a news server. Just the built in,
installed by default, NNTP service of Exchange 2k. It isnt pulling
anything. It isnt accessbile by anyone except internal, which is me.
 
If I click on the Internet Newsgroups folder it does not display
anything.

-Original Message- 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thu 11/15/2001 1:12 PM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: Internet NewsGroups




Do you have it hooked up to a news server?  Is it pulling news
groups?  Do
you really need to be running a news server?
~
-K.Borndale
Network Administrator
Sybari Software
631.630.8569 -direct dial
631.439.0689 -fax
http://www.sybari.com
One man's ceiling is another man's floor


|+---
||  Mike Carlson   |
||  [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
||  Sent by: |
||  bounce-exchange-148870@ls|
||  .swynk.com   |
||   |
||   |
||  11/15/2001 12:34 PM  |
||  Please respond to|
||  Exchange Discussions   |
||   |
|+---

---
|
  |
|
  |   To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
  |   cc:
|
  |   Subject: RE: Internet NewsGroups
|

---
|




I have the NNTP service running on the Exchange box. Is it
supposed to
link to that?

   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Sent: Thu 11/15/2001 11:35 AM
   To: Exchange Discussions
   Cc:
   Subject: Re: Internet NewsGroups




   If you are pulling stuff from a news server.  You'll
know if you
are.
   ~
   -K.Borndale
   Network Administrator
   Sybari Software
   631.630.8569 -direct dial
   631.439.0689 -fax
   http://www.sybari.com
   One man's ceiling is another man's floor


   |+---
   ||  Mike Carlson   |
   ||  [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
   ||  Sent by: |
   ||  bounce-exchange-148870@ls|
   ||  .swynk.com   |
   ||   |
   ||   |
   ||  11/14/2001 09:47 PM  |
   ||  Please respond to|
   ||  Exchange Discussions   |
   ||   |
   |+---


---

|
 |
|
 |   To: Exchange Discussions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
 |   cc:
|
 |   Subject: Internet NewsGroups
|


---

|




   What is the Internet Newsgroups Public Folder for?
Just for
kicks I
   tried to post something to it and said Operation
Failed.

   Thanks,

   
   Mike Carlson
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   http://www.domitianx.com

   Master Of The Spoon People

RE: Fax

[Mike Carlson]

Symantec Fax program that comes with Win2k? If Win2k comes with Fax
software that can send and receive faxes like a stripped down version of
WinFax, that would be great. The modem is hooked up to a server, it is
not hooked up to the client.

-Original Message- 
From: Don Ely 
Sent: Thu 11/15/2001 1:20 PM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: Fax



For a whoppin 7 faxes a year, I wouldn't do anything beyond
WinFax.  I might
even be inclined to use the Symantec Fax program that comes with
W2K...

-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 11:22 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Fax


I am not looking for anything fancy. I just want the ability to
fax out of
Outlook and receive faxes. I get about 2 per year and I send
about 5 per
year.

I was hoping to not spend any money if I dont have to. I may
have to look to
something like WinFax.

-Original Message-
From: Dupler, Craig
Sent: Thu 11/15/2001 12:54 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: RE: Fax
   
   

Oh, one other thing.  If someone on the outside of your
company is
sophisticated enough to be able to handle supplemental
DTMF
addressing to
cause an inbound fax arriving at your Exchange Server to
be properly
routed,
then that person will have access to a digital route,
which
basically means
that inbound automatic routing can work, but no one is
ever going to
use it.
You can buy the technology, but that does not make it
worthwhile.
Inbound
will have to be manually forwarded.
   
Fax really is an obsolete technology that is probably
less useful
than an
Underwood.
   
-Original Message-
From: Dupler, Craig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 10:37 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Fax
   
   
I agree with both EG's (Exchange goddesses)
   
Can Exchange act as a fax server?  Not exactly.  Fax's
can be
transported by
SMTP as a registered MIME type.  This of course makes
the server
blind to
the content, and means that it can be a client issue.
However,
Exchange
Server can also have a FAX service or connector
installed.  This
enables the
server itself to drive a modem or high grade telephony
board to
either
directly send or receive faxes.  Outbound, MAPI clients
(i.e.
Outlook) or
OWA clients can send to a fax recipient using ad hoc
addressing,
once the
FAX address type has been created by adding such a
service.  Of
course,
permanent fax addressees can be stored in the AD/GAL or
the PAB/CL.
Inbound, is a little trickier.  If the inbound fax has
some DTMF
supplemental addressing that maps (insert magic box
here) to an
AD/GAL
addressee, then the MTA can deliver it.  Alternately,
they can be
routed to
a specific printer, or a specific secretarial addressee
for manual
forwarding.
   
Several vendors make one of these combination fax
connector and
magic box
servers for Exchange.
   
Microsoft Fax is a client tool.  It is not Exchange
Server aware.
It's been
awhile since I looked at it, but if it can save a
document as a fax
file,
then presumably this could be attached to a mail message
and the
proper MIME
type would get applied. But as the EG's said, this would
be lame
beyond
belief or any human comprehension.  Usually people are
interested in
transmitting digital data and getting non-digital data
into some
sort of
intelligible format.  To take a perfectly good digital
document,
then store
it as a useless piece of raster junk, and then send it
as an SMTP
attachment
to someone that has some sort of a junky raster-only
printer, well,
that
would

Lotus Notes

[Mike Carlson]

What functionality does the Lotus Notes connector provide? We have a
Notes box and we are thinking about setting up an Exchange 2k box, for
various reasons, and wondering what type of functionality the connector
provides.

Thanks,


Mike Carlson
http://www.domitianx.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None
 

_
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: Lotus Notes

[Mike Carlson]

So the Exchange directory could be populated by the Notes server? So if
the Notes box is the one in the MX records for our domain and an email
is sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] the Notes box would get it and the Exchange
box would pull it off there and store it in the appropriate mailbox on
the Exchange server or would it just pull it from the Notes server as it
is opened.

I don't see Notes going away initially since our corporate company sent
us the Notes box and told us to use it and they have some stupid little
apps that are Notes based.

If we could get the Exchange box to basically mirror the Notes box until
such time as we can migrate everything, that would be great.


Mike Carlson
http://www.domitianx.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Eric Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
 Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 3:40 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: Re: Lotus Notes
 
 
 Allows you to send messages (ie, Connect) between the two 
 systems.  It's also possible to replicate directory between 
 the two systems over the Notes Connector.  It's useful in 
 heterogeneous environments or during a migration from one 
 system (Notes) to the other (Exchange).
 
 Eric
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Mike Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 1:11 PM
 Subject: Lotus Notes
 
 
 What functionality does the Lotus Notes connector provide? We 
 have a Notes box and we are thinking about setting up an 
 Exchange 2k box, for various reasons, and wondering what type 
 of functionality the connector provides.
 
 Thanks,
 
 
 Mike Carlson
 http://www.domitianx.com
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Master Of The Spoon People
 Keeper Of None
 
 
 _
 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]

Error

[Mike Carlson]

80004005 when trying to get properties on a Public Folder in Exchange
Manager.

I created a few new Public Folders while I was in Outlook, now when I
try get properties on them in Exchange Manager I get the error. I can
get properties on the folders while in Outlook and I can view the item
when I am in OWA.

I have tried all the steps in the MS KB that I could find.


Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.domitianx.com

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None
 

_
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]

Internet NewsGroups

[Mike Carlson]

What is the Internet Newsgroups Public Folder for? Just for kicks I
tried to post something to it and said Operation Failed.

Thanks,


Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.domitianx.com

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None
 

_
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: Outlook 2000 Rules?

[Mike Carlson]

I have no idea what you are talking about in regards to subscribe a
public folder and set NOMAIL?
 
So I should set a public folder to receive all my mail and I receive
none in my personal box?
 
Can you elaborate?
 
BTW, I have never had a problem with the subject being prefixed in any
client I have used from OE to Outlook to Entourage to Netscape to
Mozilla on the Mac/PC. Or Pine or Evolution or Netscape or Mozilla on
Linux. This list and the Outlook-Dev list are the only ones out of the
30 or so I subscribe to that dont prefix the subjects.
 
Mike

-Original Message- 
From: Roger Seielstad 
Sent: Tue 11/13/2001 7:07 AM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: Outlook 2000 Rules?



Because its obnoxious to add that, as it breaks thread sorting
capabilities
of some clients.

HINT: If you're not going to follow the best method (subscribe a
public
folder for the mail and your personal account with the NOMAIL
option), set
the rule up to move all mail sent TO [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Works wonders...

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE MCT
Senior Systems Administrator
Peregrine Systems
Atlanta, GA
http://www.peregrine.com


 -Original Message-
 From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 7:44 AM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Outlook 2000 Rules?


 Thats the reason most other lists prefix the subject with the
 list name.
 For example:
 
 [ExchangeDiscussion] Subject
 
 So people can create rules to move it to folders when they
 arrive. This
 is one of the few lists I have been on that does not do that.
 
 Mike

   -Original Message-
   From: Robert Moore
   Sent: Tue 11/13/2001 6:31 AM
   To: Exchange Discussions
   Cc:
   Subject: RE: Outlook 2000 Rules?
  
  

   I sort on the rule if
 http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm;
   appears in the body, then send it to my Exchange List
folder.
 That
   works.
  
   Rob
  
   -Original Message-
   From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
   Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 12:07 AM
   To: Exchange Discussions
   Subject: RE: Outlook 2000 Rules?
  
  
   Subscribe a public folder.
  
   Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
   Tech Consultant
   Compaq Computer
   There are seldom good technological solutions to
behavioral
 problems.
  
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Desmond
   Witherspoon
   Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 8:11 AM
   To: Exchange Discussions
   Subject: Outlook 2000 Rules?
  
  
   Hey all,
   I'm trying to set some rules so that the emails from
this
   list gets diverted to the appropriate folder. Which is
great (in
 theory)
   the problem is that none of the rules seem to work.
  
   Desmond Witherspoon
   Network and PC Support Technician
   Metropolitan New York Library Council
   57 East 11th Street
   New York, NY 10003
  
  
  

_
   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

RE: Outlook 2000 Rules?

[Mike Carlson]

LCD?

What TLA is that a TLA for?


Mike Carlson
http://www.domitianx.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Chris  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
 Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 7:21 AM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Outlook 2000 Rules?
 
 
  This list and the
  Outlook-Dev list are the only ones out of the 30 or so I 
  subscribe to that don't prefix the subjects.
 
 Apparently the other 28 or so pander to the LCD. 
 
 Chris
 -- 
 Chris Scharff
 Senior Sales Engineer
 MessageOne
 If you can't measure, you can't manage! 
 
 
 
 _
 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: Oracle to replace Exchange? Not!

[Mike Carlson]

Great. Now I have to clean the snot/pop off my monitor.
 
Thanks,
Mike

-Original Message- 
From: Doug Hampshire 
Sent: Tue 11/13/2001 9:17 AM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: Oracle to replace Exchange? Not!





http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/cn/2003/tc/ellison_aims_for_microsoft_s
_e-m
ail_crown_1.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]


ŠËi¢Ëbž
@Bm§ÿðÃ0Šw¢oëzÊ.­Ç¿{!}ª¡¶`+r¯zÈm¶ŸÿÃ
,Ã)är‰¿²+^±æ«rìyªÜ…«)N‹§²æìr¸›zf¢–Ú%y«Þ{!jx–Ë0Êy¢a1r§ââ²Öš)åŠËZvh§³§‘Ê

RE: Oracle to replace Exchange? Not!

[Mike Carlson]

I was reading about the Email package Oracle offers and it really doesnt
look like much more than a standard POP3/IMAP server that has a new
feature called web calendaring.
 
H sounds allot like IMail by Ipswitch. Just 200 times the
cost.
 
It doesnt look like it does hardly any collaboration at all besides the
big bad Web Calendaring.
 
Mike

-Original Message- 
From: Dupler, Craig 
Sent: Tue 11/13/2001 11:51 AM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: Oracle to replace Exchange? Not!



Interesting discussion.

A couple of observations:  Exchange and Notes are about
something quite
different than Oracle and other similar messaging engines.  What
Ellison
calls e-mail, is not the same thing.  The reasons that the
mostly Unix based
systems did not get the market that went the LAN server based
systems was
the cost of entry for small installations, and the lack of
critical features
such as integration with the Windows desktop and a good group
calendaring
solution.

That much being said, Exchange and Notes are now incumbents.  If
they fail
to do the better job of supporting emerging requirements from
other
platforms, then Exchange and Notes could also go away or become
marginalized.  Right now, Exchange does not do the web as well
as it should,
and some parts of Microsoft still labor under the totally lame
notion that
the new small devices are only companions to big PC's.  Unix
folks back in
the 80's used to look down their noses at the lowly PC and could
not bring
themselves to stoop to be good service providers to them.  Much
of that same
attitude is now being exhibited by the PC systems communities
toward the new
smaller devices.  What goes around . . .

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 7:23 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Oracle to replace Exchange? Not!


Ellison derided Microsoft's Exchange e-mail servers as
unreliable and
insecure.
Huh? What??

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Doug
Hampshire
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 7:17 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Oracle to replace Exchange? Not!




http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/cn/2003/tc/ellison_aims_for_microsoft_s
_e-m
ail_crown_1.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]


_
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]


â²Úh²Ø§€P†Ûiÿü0Â̝Ç(›úÞ²‹«qïÞÅÈ_j¨m˜
܆+Þ²m§ÿðÃ0Êy¢oìŠ×¬yªÜ‡ûj·!jÊS¢éì¹»®Þ™¨¥¶‰^j÷žÅÈZž¥²Ì2žG(˜L\…©àx¸¬µ§fŠyb²Öš)ìÃ)är‰

RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because....

[Mike Carlson]

 -Original Message-
 From: Benjamin Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
 Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 7:26 AM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
 
 
 On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Roger Seielstad wrote:
  Most customers who have used MS OSs since the DOS days, not 
 to mention 
  those exposed to *nix, like the ability to script just about any 
  change to the OS ...
 
   The issue is not scripting per se, but the fact that MS 
 Outlook and MSIE have a long history of just running whatever 
 the other guy sends to you, without regard for the fact that 
 it may be harmful to your computer.
 
  Do you think Microsoft pulls these features out of their nether 
  regions?
 
   How else do you explain that damn paperclip?  ;-)

The paper clip was quite popular when it first came out. If it wouldn't
show up every 2.85 seconds in Windows, it wouldn't be hated the way it
is now.

 
  So, you're not aware of the fact that with about 30 seconds 
 worth of 
  work (literally), you could write a script that would alleviate all 
  these scripting vulnerabilities on all your machines?
 
   Why should *I* have to clean up after *Microsoft's* 
 mistakes?  I paid good money for their software; it is 
 unreasonable to expect it to be secure in the default configuration?

If you have been working with Microsoft's software for any amount of
time over a week you should know that their software is open until
closed, where as most other applications and operating systems are
closed until open.

You do NOT have any type of access to a *nix box unless given permission
to. Same with Novell. Micrsoft on the other hand gives you full blown
rights to just about everything out of the box.

It has always been that way, this is nothing new.

 
  Again, the onus here rests on the Administrator ...
 
   What about the millions of home users who don't know even 
 know how to spell VBS?

That ths advantage of Windows. You don't need to spell VBS, it adds it
for you and the user will never see it unless they take the time to
change that setting.

 
   The estimates I hear state that viruses and worms due to 
 poor design on Microsoft's part cost billions of dollars per 
 year.  Don't you think billions of dollars is a bit much?

So you did hear about the customers that complained about MS security. I
thought you were unaware of anyone that complained about MS software
being vulnerable. Hmmm..

No I don't think that is a lot of money considering how large of a
penetration Outlook has in the Corp. world. The amount of bandwidth
consumed from all the emails, the crashed mail servers, support costs.
That really isnt a lot of money in the big scheme of things.

 
 -- 
 Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the 
 author and do 
 | not | necessarily represent the views or policy of any 
 other person, 
 | entity or  | organization.  All information is provided without 
 | warranty of any kind.  |
 
 
 _
 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: It's not Microsoft's fault because....

[Mike Carlson]

I think it has quite a lot to do with ease of use. The mindset may be
that products that are easier to use will sell more copies. If you have
to go into an application and set a couple hundred options just to
allow/disallow things, then people may not want to use the product.
Being easy to use right out of the box is a huge selling point for MS.
 
I dont think it is a matter of demanding insecure features, I think it
is more of demanding to do whatever they want to configure the
application to suit their needs, which then opens up security risks.
 
They need to keep it open enough so that when someone creates a custom
form in Outlook, they dont have to programatically check various
registry keys and settings to see if the necessary settings are
available and if they are not, enable them.
 
For a developer having to write 600 lines of code to make sure
everything is set right before launching the form would be an enormous
amount of work compared to editing a key to allow .exe files to show up.
Granted that may be the more secure way of doing things, but then people
may not want to develop for that platform.
 
Microsoft made a lot of money off Windows and Office being extremely
easy to develop for and use. With that there is security risks. If they
started to make it difficult and a lot of work for developers, they
would loose a portion of the bread and butter. There would be a lot less
MS/Windows/Office developers out there. Which I guess isnt a BAD thing.
:-)
 
 
Mike
 

-Original Message- 
From: Benjamin Scott 
Sent: Mon 11/12/2001 12:00 PM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because



On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Chris Scharff wrote:
 Why should *I* have to clean up after *Microsoft's*
 mistakes?  I paid good money for their software; it is
 unreasonable to expect it to be secure in the default
configuration?

 You're just being a troll like Shawn now right?  If you're not
going to
 add anything useful to the conversation, why even have it?

  Alright, I will concede that was a bit heated, but that
attitude really
irks me.

  Some customers demand insecure features.  Granted.
Historically,
Microsoft has implemented those insecure features by default,
leading to
security problems for everyone.  Other customers have demanded
products
designed with security in mind.  Microsoft blames the problem on
customers
not installing fixes.

  Am I the only one who sees the inconsistency with this?  Why
does
Microsoft only listen to the demands of customers who want
insecurity?  Why
don't the demands of people who want more secure products count?

  My issue is not with installing updates or correcting insecure
defaults.
I am perfectly capable of doing so, thank you very much.  My
issue is that
the problem does not appear to be caused simple programming
errors, but
through a continued disregard for security on the part of
Microsoft.  That
makes my job harder than it needs to be, and that is not
something I like.

  To use an analogy, when I buy a car, I do not expect to have
to remove a
bolt mounted behind the gas tank to prevent the vehicle from
exploding when
involved in a rear-end impact.

  Thankfully, after this latest Nimda fiasco, Microsoft appears
to be waking
up to the fact that producing the software equivalent of a Ford
Pinto is not
a practice that instills customer loyalty.

--
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author
and do not |
| necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person,
entity or  |
| organization.  All information is provided without warranty of
any kind.  |



_
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]


â²Úh²Ø§€P†Ûiÿü0Â̝Ç(›úÞ²‹«qïÞÅÈ_j¨m˜
܆+Þ²m§ÿðÃ0Êy¢oìŠ×¬yªÜ‡ûj·!jÊS¢éì¹»®Þ™¨¥¶‰^j÷žÅÈZž¥²Ì2žG(˜L\…©àx¸¬µ§fŠyb²Öš)ìÃ)är‰

RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because....

[Mike Carlson]

I wouldnt say it is a flaw. It can be a bad thing, but not a flaw. MS
software out of the box has been historically access unless denied
where as the other big players are denied until granted access.
 
It is that way no matter the file system, it just the way MS has it
setup out of the box. For people from the Novell or *nix world, this is
something they have a hard time remembering.
 
I wish MS would use the denied until granted access mindset, but that
will probably never happen. At least not in the short term.
 
Mike

-Original Message- 
From: Black, Nathan 
Sent: Mon 11/12/2001 1:44 PM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because



 Nimda required the IUSR_MachineName account to have read
 access into the
 \WinNT tree. A properly secured server would have that
 directory (and ALL
 directories outside Inetpub\www) explicity denied permissions.

If you came from a different background, that _would_ be a flaw
in the
promiscuous-by-default design of the NTFS file system.

Nathan

 -Original Message-
 From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 1:23 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because



_
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]


.+-¦‹-Šx
m¶ŸÿÃ,Â)Ür‰¿­ë(º·ýì\…öª†Ù€­Èb½ë!¶Úÿ0³
§‘ÊþÈ­zǚ­È±æ«r¬¥:.žË›±Êâm隊[h•æ¯yì\…©àz[,Ã)är‰„ÅÈZž‹ŠËZvh§–+-iÙ¢žÌ2žG(

RE: To all the Vets on the list

[Mike Carlson]

I would like to add this to this thread, a post I made on a site that I
frequent:
 
http://www.ultimatechaos.com/cgi-bin/news/viewnews.cgi?category=1id=100
5543735
 
Mike

-Original Message- 
From: John Matteson 
Sent: Mon 11/12/2001 2:04 PM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: To all the Vets on the list



To all the Veterans of all branches of the U.S. Armed Services
on the list:

Thank you for your service to our country.

And if you happen to be a veteran of an Allied armed service:

Thank you for your service to your country.

John Matteson; Exchange Manager
Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards
(404) 239 - 2981

...the words that I remember from my childhood still are true,
that there
are none so blind as those who will not see
--The Moody Blues (I know you're out there)




_
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]


â²Úh²Ø§€P†Ûiÿü0Â̝Ç(›úÞ²‹«qïÞÅÈ_j¨m˜
܆+Þ²m§ÿðÃ0Êy¢oìŠ×¬yªÜ‡ûj·!jÊS¢éì¹»®Þ™¨¥¶‰^j÷žÅÈZž¥²Ì2žG(˜L\…©àx¸¬µ§fŠyb²Öš)ìÃ)är‰

RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because....

[Mike Carlson]

To be honest, I dont know. I dont think it will bother me too much. I
will just have to adapt. It would be painful initially that is for sure.
 
It may turn off people that have not yet come to the dark side, but
those of us that are entrenched into the ways of the dark side may just
adapt. There will be some that jump ship, but over all I think that most
MS developers will not have too many problems. I think the ones that
will be most affected are the ones that are big developers. Secretaries
and Managers who do simple things without realizing the code that is
underneath the hood. They will have a problem Im sure.
 
Again, this is based on the idea that they implement a security model
that mirrors that of the other big players.
 
Mike

-Original Message- 
From: Benjamin Scott 
Sent: Mon 11/12/2001 1:56 PM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because



On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Mike Carlson wrote:
 For a developer having to write 600 lines of code to make sure
 everything is set right before launching the form would be an
enormous
 amount of work compared to editing a key to allow .exe files
to show up.
 Granted that may be the more secure way of doing things, but
then people
 may not want to develop for that platform.

 Microsoft made a lot of money off Windows and Office being
extremely
 easy to develop for and use. With that there is security
risks.

  I think you make a good point.  What may have been a good
approach in the
short term (very easy to work with, but insecure) is not so good
in the long
term (it is still insecure, leading to many upset customers).  I
wonder,
what happens next?  Microsoft has said they will be moving to
make things
more secure.  Assuming they follow through, does that mean
people will move
away to easier-but-less-secure platforms, restarting a cycle?
Or will it
mean security becomes a fundamental for Windows/Office
programming (which, I
would argue, it should be)?

  Would people still like Exchange so much, if it was more
secure but less
convenient?  I know *I* certainly would, but I'm not an Exchange
programmer.
I wonder, how hard would it be to design a model that is secure
by default,
but easily opens up access to software with the proper
authorizations?  I
suspect that would require moving most of the scripting
intelligence into
the server, where it can be protected better.  Anyone here who
knows more
about Exchange programming than I (i.e., just about anyone) have
any
comments on that?

--
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author
and do not |
| necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person,
entity or  |
| organization.  All information is provided without warranty of
any kind.  |



_
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]


â²Úh²Ø§€P†Ûiÿü0Â̝Ç(›úÞ²‹«qïÞÅÈ_j¨m˜
܆+Þ²m§ÿðÃ0Êy¢oìŠ×¬yªÜ‡ûj·!jÊS¢éì¹»®Þ™¨¥¶‰^j÷žÅÈZž¥²Ì2žG(˜L\…©àx¸¬µ§fŠyb²Öš)ìÃ)är‰

RE: Move Exchange 2k to a different box

[Mike Carlson]

Is there a tool I can use to move everything off the old box to the new
box? I was just planning on installing exchange on the other box (which
is a member of the same domain), get it up to date and them move
everything over to it.


Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.domitianx.com

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
 Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 2:12 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Move Exchange 2k to a different box
 
 
 No, you don't need to make the new box a DC. The supposition 
 for the AD migration portion was the migration in a single 
 server environment.
 
 Chris
 -- 
 Chris Scharff
 Senior Sales Engineer
 MessageOne
 If you can't measure, you can't manage! 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 12:43 PM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: Move Exchange 2k to a different box
  
  
  I was reading the ECMSM and it talks about, if the current
  exchange box is also a AD server, the steps in making the new 
  box a AD server.
  
  If Exchange is running on a DC do I NEED to make the new box
  a DC? The box I am moving it to is not a DC it is just a 2k 
  server (with SQL) and a member of the domain, but it is not a DC.
  
  I want to get exchange off the DC and move it to a regular 2k box.
  
  Thanks,
  
  
  Mike Carlson
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  http://www.domitianx.com
  
  Master Of The Spoon People
  Keeper Of None
  
  
  _
  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: backup

[Mike Carlson]

I know what you mean. I don't trick coffee, but Mountain Dew gets really
old after a while.

This is a learning process for me. I have exchange setup at home and I
am in the process of learning how it works and what not. I am going out
today to purchase some books on the topic, which will help immensely. I
have only had it setup for a few weeks.

The backup ran last night and everything seems to be working fine. All I
need is System state, the storage group and the C: drive right?

The box is also the DC for AD.

Since this is a home box, I can afford to mess something up without
major impact.


Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.domitianx.com

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
 Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 9:31 AM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: Re: backup
 
 
 Ah the old if I work at it long enough I will get the results 
 needed. I hate that, then you wake up the next day and the 
 light bulb goes off. I have an unwritten rule that after 6-8 
 hours working at a problem and your running around in circles 
 go home and get a good rest and 9 times out of 10 the answers 
 comes much more quickly. Everytime I am forced to stay at it 
 all nite due to a serious outage the next day I always say 
 man why didn't I think of that last nite. I think coffee 
 dulls the brain after 14 hours. Good luck with your backup 
 maintenance issues.
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Mike Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 10:37 AM
 Subject: RE: backup
 
 
 Because I clicked on the link at the bottom of the emails. 
 And since it was almost midnight, my time, I failed to notice 
 that the link brought you to the 5.5 faq instead of the 2k faq.
 
 
 Mike Carlson
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.domitianx.com
 
 Master Of The Spoon People
 Keeper Of None
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 6:40 AM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: Re: backup
 
 
  Pretty basic stuff. All/most all books on E2K and 2K Server have 
  procedures in them to do a backup. Why would you look in 
 the 5.5 FAQ 
  if your using E2K?
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Mike Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 11:55 PM
  Subject: RE: backup
 
 
  Welp. The E2k faq wasn't much better.
 
  Am I going to do any damage from a online backup? Is there 
 anything I 
  should look out for?  What is the proper procedure for an offline 
  backup.
 
  Any help is appreciated.
 
  
  Mike Carlson
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  http://www.domitianx.com
 
  Master Of The Spoon People
  Keeper Of None
  
 
   -Original Message-
   From: Mike Carlson
   Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 10:37 PM
   To: Exchange Discussions
   Subject: RE: backup
  
  
   Welp. I mispoke about info in the Faq. I was looking in the
  5.5 FAQ.
   2k faq seems to have a bit more.
  
   
   Mike Carlson
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   http://www.domitianx.com
  
   Master Of The Spoon People
   Keeper Of None
   
  
-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 10:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: backup
   
   
It does sound new to me, but I found very little in the 
 FAQ about 
back up except what to use.
   
I find the FAQ not very useful. Things like Open File 
 Agent = BAD 
without an explanation is useless.
   
The only reference I found was to an Exchange 5.5
  whitepaper on MS's
website.
   
The discuss_exch2000 group has 10 entries for backup.
   
The MS info I found here: 
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/tec
hnet/prodt echnol/exchange/maintain/operate/opsguide/e2kops5.asp
   
It talks about off line storage but it doesn't talk about how I 
should stop the services to do an off-line backup. Do I have to 
manually stop everything first? I am backing up to disk using 
NTBackup.
   

Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.domitianx.com
   
Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None

   
 -Original Message-
 From: Josefowski, Larry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 8:54 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: backup


 Have you backed up the server before?  The NT backup on
   the Exchange
 server is a little different, and backs up the Exchange
   Store, known
 as an on-line backup.  If this sounds new to you, you
   haven't read
 the FAQ.

 -Original Message-
 From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED

Move Exchange 2k to a different box

[Mike Carlson]

I was reading the ECMSM and it talks about, if the current exchange box
is also a AD server, the steps in making the new box a AD server.

If Exchange is running on a DC do I NEED to make the new box a DC? The
box I am moving it to is not a DC it is just a 2k server (with SQL) and
a member of the domain, but it is not a DC.

I want to get exchange off the DC and move it to a regular 2k box.

Thanks,


Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.domitianx.com

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None
 

_
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: Seriously been tasked with this

[Mike Carlson]

Actually I have heard of something like this before. I don't think this
is all that unusual.

I know the Mdaemon (http://www.mdaemon.com) has the ability to delete
messages after so many days. Mdaemon is a ver full featured mail server,
but it just doesn't have all the collaboration that exchange does.

I used Mdaemon for years before moving to Exchange.

Mike

-Original Message-
From: Cook, David A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 7:47 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Seriously been tasked with this


Happy Friday to all. I should have saved this for a Monday morning as
I'm sure it's going to bring many laughs and many people saying that
this is absolutely crazy. I've been tasked with this though and I thus
have to come up with a solution and pricing for the solution. I doubt it
is anything that will seriously be implemented but here is the job at
hand.

I'm running Exchange 2000 with all incoming mail coming in through a
Mail Marshal mail gateway. We had a situation a few months ago in which
we had major AD replication issues that cause DCs/GCs to respond very
slowly and in some cases not respond as DCs/GCs at all. This caused
Exchange to be unusable and for all practical purposes we were in a
network down situation for 3 days with Microsoft in house working the
issue with us. As we all know if AD is down then Exchange is down also.

The task is to make sending, receiving and access to recent emails
available in the event of another network down situation. Obviously if
the physical network is down this is impossible but if Exchange goes
down then they want email to be available in some way. Since E2K relies
on AD I figure this secondary access can not include E2K.

My thought, and I don't think the money could be justified, is that I
have some type of a POP server that no one ever logs into. I would have
a mailbox for each user on that POP server and every message coming in
from the internet would be forward from the gateway to Exchange like it
currently is and a copy also sent to the POP server. The POP server
would then need the functionality to automatically delete any emails
over a certain age. In the event of Exchange being down we could notify
everyone to open Outlook Express which we would have preconfigured
through policy to point to the POP server and the users would be
functional with respect to email. 

I'm prepared for some interesting responses to this crazy idea.

Dave Cook
Exchange Administrator
Kutak Rock, LLP
402-231-8352
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

##
The information contained in this electronic mail transmission
(including any accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its
authorized recipient(s), and may be confidential and/or legally 
privileged.  If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for
delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended 
recipient, you have received this transmission in error and are 
hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from reading, copying,
printing, distributing or disclosing any of the information contained in
it.  In that event, please contact us immediately by telephone 
(402)346-6000 or by electronic mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
delete the original and all copies of this transmission (including any
attachments) without reading or saving in any manner.  

Thank you.
##

_
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: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe

[Mike Carlson]

Conformity by humiliation. Works like a champ.

Mike

-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 8:07 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe


Someone else on this list used to post the peoples names on the main
Intranet page. It only took one major outbreak to fix that behavior.

Roger
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE MCT
Senior Systems Administrator
Peregrine Systems
Atlanta, GA
http://www.peregrine.com


 -Original Message-
 From: Eric Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 7:12 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: Re: Outlook blocked access to the following
 potentially unsafe
 
 
 At my last job we proposed a security policy whereby any user
 who executed a
 virus and infected the system would have to wear a dunce cap 
 and a T-Shirt
 that says I'm the idiot who opened the virus for a week.  
 It was almost
 made policy.  Damn hippies shot it down...
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Mike Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:00 PM
 Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following
 potentially unsafe
 
 
 Exactly why MS has to create patches like this particular one.
 
 Morons.
 
 What would be cool is if you could put a lock on their mail
 box so that
 when they open up Outlook there is an administrative message staring
 them in the face. Before they could open any email they would have to
 click OK and then retype what the administrative message was in a box
 exactly as it was. If they don't get it right, they are 
 prompted again.
 If a new virus goes around the admin could put a lock on all mailboxes
 until they perform those steps.
 
 Kind like yelling at your kids. You tell them something and then you 
 make them repeat it back to you so that you realize they heard what 
 you said.
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 5:49 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following
 potentially unsafe
 
 
 Users will open anything regardless of what you say.
 I remember ILOVEYOU, and a user. I had sent out emails all day long 
 warning about this virus that had penetrated to a few machines before 
 we had the DAT file for it. Anyhow, after an email an hour all day, I 
 was talking to this guy about it at his desk. As I am talking, he
 is looking
 at mail and opens it right then! He had a laptop, and I ripped the
 PCCard NIC out, but too late. He just stood there and stared 
 at me, as I
 turned and ran for my servers. Too late.
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Carlson
 Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 3:45 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following
 potentially unsafe
 
 
 Yes you should and you do. Edit the registry.
 
 No reason to blame MS for stupid people that open every 
 clickmetof*ckupyourcomputer.exe they get in an email.
 
 When are people going to take responsibility for stupid stuff they do 
 and their own incompetence.
 
 If you don't know how to drive are you going to blame the person that 
 runs into you? If you don't know how to use a shotgun are going to 
 blame the person who sold you the gun when you blow your arm off?
 
 I am amazed all the time when we get new hires, that cant
 barely survive
 without a sign on their desk reminding them to inhale and exhale
 otherwise they will die, and throw them in front of a 
 computer and they
 have no clue. We had to send a tech down to help a person log 
 into their
 computer. They didn't know how to press CTRL+ALT+DEL. The keyboard had
 CTL instead of CTRL on the key.
 
 Or the other fabulous ones that reboot their computer and
 call us saying
 their hard drive crashed when all they did was leave a non-bootable
 floppy disk in the drive.
 
 People need to take responsibility and face up to the fact
 that they are
 computer illiterate or just plain dense when it comes to some of this
 stuff.
 
 Because people think they are computer geniuses even though they 
 couldn't tell the difference between \ and / companies like Microsoft 
 have to put in their application things like this patch.
 
 My wife is a prime example. She will be the first to admint
 she doesn't
 know anything about computers ecept for the applications that she uses
 all the time. If I am logged into my computer and she needs 
 it, she logs
 into her own account because I have setup her account so that she cant
 do any damage to the computer.
 
 Don't blame MS. They are just responding to all the crap they
 got about
 not being secure. If people wouldn't click on every stupid theng they
 get via email, MS would ahev NEVER released that patch.
 
 There is no one to blame

RE: OT - flirtatiousness on THIS list??

[Mike Carlson]

Is that a 20GB IMS or are you just happy to see me?

Happy POETS Day!

Mike

-Original Message-
From: Elizabeth Farrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 5:42 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OT - flirtatiousness on THIS list??



#OOooohhhwho popped their cogs and made you the list owner?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kim Cameron
Sent: 09 November 2001 07:43
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OT - flirtatiousness on THIS list??


fine.  now, do you suppose you could take this charming conversation
elsewhere?  i don't think there was ever a consensus that you could
commandeer this list to any topic simply by putting OT: in in the
subject line.

i promise to take it on faith that all of you are quite capable of being
thoroughly bawdy and repugnant, though in your fumbling, geeky way.  so
will you hush?


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Elizabeth
Farrell
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 5:32 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OT - flirtatiousness on THIS list??




...it has also been suggested that most women wouldn't

evil grin

E.



_
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: Upgrading to W2K

[Mike Carlson]

Upgrading is like rolling the dice. It may work and it may not.

A clean install is always the recommended procedure.


Mike Carlson
http://www.domitianx.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 1:28 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Upgrading to W2K


I want to upgrade an NT4 SP6a server with E5.5 Sp4 to W2K Server.  I
want to do a direct upgrade and not have to touch Exchange.  Has anyone
done this and if so are there any pitfalls to be aware of?  I plan to
review TechNet prior to doing it but I thought someone who as had the
experience could comment.

Thanks.




Bill Lambert, MCP,MCSE


Network Consultant
Endoxy Healthcare
847-941-9206
[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]

E2k SP2

[Mike Carlson]

Out of curiosity, what is the target release date of SP2 for E2k?


Mike Carlson
http://www.domitianx.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None
 

_
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: OWA 2000 KISS

[Mike Carlson]

You are just trying to set it up so that they don't have to type the
extra \exchange on the end right?

You could also set the default website to point to the same virtual
directory that the \exchange virtual directory points to. I believe that
should work.


Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.domitianx.com

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None
 

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 5:43 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA 2000 KISS


You could make it even easier by creating a CNAME record for mail and
point it to servername.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation (soon to be HP)
All your base are belong to us.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Morrison, Gordon
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 6:44 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OWA 2000 KISS



Is there any way I can change the OWA launch location from being
http:\\servername\exchange to http:\\servername.  This was pretty
straightforward on 5.5 OWA, but when I try it on 2000 I either get an
unauthorized to view message or I get a directory listing format, which
is kind of cool, but would make my users cranky.

Thanks
Gordon


















___NOTICE
This electronic mail transmission contains confidential information
intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or
disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you received
this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and
then destroy the message. Opinions, conclusions, and other information
in this message that do not relate to the official business of Bain 
Company shall be understood to be neither given nor endorsed by the
Company. When addressed to Bain clients, any information contained in
this e-mail is subject to the terms and conditions in the governing
client contract.

_
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: Forest and domain prep

[Mike Carlson]

I apologize for chiming in here late, but I have question.

Do you NEED to run these tools? What exactly are they for and what do
they do? I set up AD at home on one box and installed exchange on that
box. Should I have run these before I installed exchange? Should I run
them now?

I have never upgraded from NT 4 or an earlier version of exchange. I am
assuming these tools are only for if you are migrating, correct?

Thanks,


Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.domitianx.com

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None
 

-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:52 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Forest and domain prep


Well, it causes an entire replication of the GC schema and I suppose I
wouldn't want to be mucking about in it too much... How's 0300 GMT on
Saturday work for ya?

Chris
-- 
Chris Scharff
Senior Sales Engineer
MessageOne
If you can't measure, you can't manage! 


 -Original Message-
 From: Varghese, Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:51 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Forest and domain prep
 
 
 So it's not like other databases where you don't want people
 logged in during schema updates?  I was just covering my 
 behind in making sure that users accessing resources in AD 
 wouldn't cause issues.  When we did our first forest prep in 
 our test lab, it failed.  But when we ran it again, it 
 worked.  Only difference was, the first time, we were goofing 
 around with AD (checking permissions, creating new users, etc)
 
 I guess I'm just a tad bit nervous.  This has to work on the
 first try or we
 will have some pretty ticked off directors.
 
 Thanks,
 
 Wilson Varghese
 NT Systems Manager
 KMV, LLC
 Office: (415)229-0726
 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  -Original Message-
 From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
 Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 12:33 PM
 To:   Exchange Discussions
 Subject:  RE: Forest and domain prep
 
 Forestprep and domainprep don't cause outages, so I might ask
 you to rephrase the question? Replication of the changes 
 could take weeks depending on the environment. It took about 
 60 minutes for me to install and configure E2K including 
 forestprep and domainprep in my lab last night. Course I've 
 done it once or twice before...
 
 Chris
 --
 Chris Scharff
 Senior Sales Engineer
 MessageOne
 If you can't measure, you can't manage! 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Varghese, Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 1:53 PM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: Forest and domain prep
  
  
  Does anyone know if there is a formula to calculate the amount of 
  time it will take to do a forest prep and domain prep for a Exchange

  2000 migration?
  
  
  Or can someone give me some numbers on how long it took you to do it

  when you did the migration?
  
  I am just trying to see what kind of an outage window I should 
  prepare for, but don't see any documentation on this.
  
  Thanks for any info you can provide.
  
  Wilson Varghese
  NT Systems Manager
  KMV, LLC
  Office: (415)229-0726
  Email: [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: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe - FOR THE LAST TIME!

[Mike Carlson]

Its all a matter of experience. If I had to manage a Novell network by
myself it would take me a hell of a lot longer to test stuff and
configure things than my NT/2k boxes.

Also, with Linux. I can guarantee my NT/2k boxes are much more secure
that my Linux boxes. The reason is my level of experience. I have not
spent enough time diving into Linux. I am a Linux hobbyist.

Anyone that makes a blanket statement about TCO of any platform is a
beer short of a six pack. It all comes down to experience and resources.


Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.domitianx.com

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None
 

-Original Message-
From: Shawn Connelly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 6:19 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe
- FOR THE LAST TIME!


 Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially 
unsafe
From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:45:06 -0800
Even allowing your mail system to pass .EXE and .COM files is a
mistake.
You should thank MS for making OL block those types of files since you
don't.

Huh??

So are implying that every other mail platform is dangerous because they
allow .com and .exe files?

Gee, I thought the real issue (read: problem) was the way Microsoft
processed their 'special' files (e.g. asp, vb*). 

Thank Microsoft, you must be joking?   

Let's see, in a typical work:
I spend about 3-6 hours research and testing (YES I really do test both
in my test lab and on my workstation VMs)  Microsoft's latest bug
patches.  
For Linux, probably about 1-3 hours per week.  
For Netware 5, probably not much more than 1 hour per week.  

The point being, Microsoft can make it easier but all I see is
supporting MS products is becoming more and more costly.  
[Unnecessary inflammatory comment warning] Anyone who claims the TCO is
lower for MS NOS products as compared to Novell NOS (or any other NOS
for that matter) understands little about non-MS NOS platforms!

Okay, I'm done my rant!
 
-Original Message- [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
On Behalf Of Andy David
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 11:41 AM
Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe
For such a typically minor patch?
   Where did you get that idea?

8mb worth of changes Patches have been larger. yeah, yeah, I
know Size is not representative at all.  Why are you nitpicking
something so unimportant, forgedabowdid!

The Patch didnt break Outlook, your lack of preparation did. Over and 
Out.

For god's sakes, how many times must I repeat myself? 

I understood the consequences!

My intent was to simply protest the method Microsoft used to 'correct'
the problems with Outlook.  I was really hoping to hear that fellow
administrators also agreed with my observations.  

Damn, I did not expect a lynch mob! 

I'm beginning to think this is a discussion group for a Microsoft cult.
(ha! - now take it easy, that means joke okay?)

I'll tell y'all what, from now on I'll wear my dunce cap and promise
never to speak ill of Microsoft ever again.

BTW, I wish some of you folks would edit your responses (delete the
unnecessary text) before pressing the send button.  

Have a nice day everyone!

_
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: Forest and domain prep

[Mike Carlson]

Thanks Andrew.

That is what I assumed, but I just needed to confirm.


Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.domitianx.com

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None
 

-Original Message-
From: Andrew Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 6:42 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Forest and domain prep


If you installed fresh Exchange 2k, you don't need to run those tools.
They RAN themselves behind the scene already.  However, if you DO have
the older exchange and wanna still talk to it after you E2K install,
there are a couple of steps you have to do first.  If you wanna to know
more, there are plenty of KB articles you can find on MS.  

Andrew,
MCSE (NT  W2K) + CCNA


-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Posted At: Friday, November 09, 2001 4:30 PM
Posted To: NewsgroupDiscussion
Conversation: Forest and domain prep
Subject: RE: Forest and domain prep


I apologize for chiming in here late, but I have question.

Do you NEED to run these tools? What exactly are they for and what do
they do? I set up AD at home on one box and installed exchange on that
box. Should I have run these before I installed exchange? Should I run
them now?

I have never upgraded from NT 4 or an earlier version of exchange. I am
assuming these tools are only for if you are migrating, correct?

Thanks,


Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.domitianx.com

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None
 

-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:52 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Forest and domain prep


Well, it causes an entire replication of the GC schema and I suppose I
wouldn't want to be mucking about in it too much... How's 0300 GMT on
Saturday work for ya?

Chris
-- 
Chris Scharff
Senior Sales Engineer
MessageOne
If you can't measure, you can't manage! 


 -Original Message-
 From: Varghese, Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:51 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Forest and domain prep
 
 
 So it's not like other databases where you don't want people logged in

 during schema updates?  I was just covering my behind in making sure
 that users accessing resources in AD wouldn't cause issues.  When we 
 did our first forest prep in our test lab, it failed.  But when we ran

 it again, it worked.  Only difference was, the first time, we were
 goofing around with AD (checking permissions, creating new users, etc)
 
 I guess I'm just a tad bit nervous.  This has to work on the first try

 or we
 will have some pretty ticked off directors.
 
 Thanks,
 
 Wilson Varghese
 NT Systems Manager
 KMV, LLC
 Office: (415)229-0726
 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  -Original Message-
 From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
 Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 12:33 PM
 To:   Exchange Discussions
 Subject:  RE: Forest and domain prep
 
 Forestprep and domainprep don't cause outages, so I might ask you to
 rephrase the question? Replication of the changes could take weeks 
 depending on the environment. It took about 60 minutes for me to 
 install and configure E2K including forestprep and domainprep in my 
 lab last night. Course I've done it once or twice before...
 
 Chris
 --
 Chris Scharff
 Senior Sales Engineer
 MessageOne
 If you can't measure, you can't manage!
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Varghese, Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 1:53 PM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: Forest and domain prep
  
  
  Does anyone know if there is a formula to calculate the amount of 
  time it will take to do a forest prep and domain prep for a Exchange

  2000 migration?
  
  
  Or can someone give me some numbers on how long it took you to do it

  when you did the migration?
  
  I am just trying to see what kind of an outage window I should 
  prepare for, but don't see any documentation on this.
  
  Thanks for any info you can provide.
  
  Wilson Varghese
  NT Systems Manager
  KMV, LLC
  Office: (415)229-0726
  Email: [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

BackUp

[Mike Carlson]

I am going to use NTBackup to back up my exchange box. I have selected
system state, C: drive and Exchange.

Are there any issues with doing this? Any recommendations?

Thanks,


Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.domitianx.com

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None
 

_
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 digest: November 08, 2001

[Mike Carlson]

Shawn:

I do not disagree with you on all points, just some of them. Comments
below.


Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.domitianx.com
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Shawn Connelly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
 Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 7:38 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: exchange digest: November 08, 2001
 
 
 Mike, I really wanted to bow out of this over-discussed 
 thread but I felt compelled to comment.
 
 Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following 
 potentially unsafe
 From: Mike Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 17:45:21 -0600
 
 No reason to blame MS for stupid people that open every 
 clickmetof*ckupyourcomputer.exe they get in an email.
 
 When are people going to take responsibility for stupid 
 stuff they do 
 and their own incompetence.
 
 Hello?  Mike are you there?  (Apologizes for the sarcasm...but...)
 
 For the last time (I HOPE), it's not about clicking on .exe 
 files!!  It never has been about click on .exe files!! It's 
 always been about scripting files that execute simply by 
 having a preview pane open or masquerading as a benign 
 graphics file or a seemingly innocent MS Word document or MS 
 Excel spreadsheet or... just about anything else Microsoft 
 has had their hands in.
 
 Why is this so difficult to understand?

Because vbs files and what not are only but a part of the problem.
People don't get screwed only by vbs files or other scripts. FunLove was
an executable. That ripped through networks and is still around. We
still battle that one. The security update was not implemented to stop
only vbs files and other scripts. It was developed to prevent all types
of viruses and worms. The vbs ones just got the most attention recently.

 
 Sure, you may want to add that is what anti-virus software is 
 for... but I say MS should just listen to their customers and 
 figg'n remove the potentially damaging 'features' of their 
 scripting language.

They have listened. Thats why we have the patch. I would think that it
would be hard to remove the damaging features of the scripting language
when that is what runs Outlook. The forms are built from the very same
scripting language. As a VBScript/Outlook/ASP developer I would find it
very difficult to do my job if Outlook could not interpret the script
that I have in my forms.

 
 Sure, you may want to add that all a user must do is disable 
 the vb scripting components of their OS?  Really now, so 
 AGAIN, instead of fixing the problem, let's just remove it 
 entirely?  What about the many situations where basic 
 scripting is required?  Why isn't Sun's JAVA dangerous?

It can be. I have seen Java stuff that could do serious damage with the
click of the mouse. A in-house Java developer demonstrated that.
Click.GrindDead Computer.

If someone wanted to they could do just as much damage with a Java app
than you can with VBScript. Since Java is such a low level language you
don't find the 10th grade script kiddies creating Java apps that do
damage. Those same kids can go out and search on the web for 15 minutes
and put together a VBScript that will do damage since the only tool you
really need is notepad.

 
 Oh, what's the other common excuse I read 
 That MS products are so much more popular (ubiquitous?), that 
 is why there are so many vulnerabilities?  
 What utter nonsense!  
 Microsoft products have so many vulnerabilities because their 
 products have so many more vulnerabilities than other products!  
 Have you forgotten that there are most Apache servers than 
 IIS installations and more Novell Servers than Microsoft 
 Servers. Why are these facts so difficult to understand?

The excuse is not that they have more vulnerabilities because they are
popular, it because they are popular that they are targets. Since there
are more uninformed, untrained and irresponsible people using Windows,
viruses and worms spread faster on Windows. I have said it many, many
times. If linux was as popular as Windows, you would see about the same
amount of Linux viruses. There are some linux viruses out there, but the
penetration isnt that great because it isnt that common place.

The Apache argument is becoming less and less valid. If you do more
research on the Apache/IIS debate you will see that even NetCraft is
modifying their stats to reflect that Linux installations can have
thousands upon thousands of TLDs on a single server where as IIS
averages around a few hundred. One ISP I used had 3,000 websites on one
linux box.

 
 Do I hate Microsoft like some of you have erroneously 
 assumed?  Of course not!  For the most part Microsoft was 
 very successful in making computers
 available to the masses and making them easy to use.   In 
 addition, from my
 point of view, Microsoft provides some of the 
 best/friendliest support in the business.  Comparatively 
 speaking, Novell could learn much from Microsoft; those 
 %^#!@$% are clueless when

RE: backup

[Mike Carlson]

It does sound new to me, but I found very little in the FAQ about back
up except what to use.

I find the FAQ not very useful. Things like Open File Agent = BAD
without an explanation is useless.

The only reference I found was to an Exchange 5.5 whitepaper on MS's
website.

The discuss_exch2000 group has 10 entries for backup.

The MS info I found here:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodt
echnol/exchange/maintain/operate/opsguide/e2kops5.asp

It talks about off line storage but it doesn't talk about how I should
stop the services to do an off-line backup. Do I have to manually stop
everything first? I am backing up to disk using NTBackup.


Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.domitianx.com

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Josefowski, Larry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
 Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 8:54 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: backup
 
 
 Have you backed up the server before?  The NT backup on the 
 Exchange server is a little different, and backs up the 
 Exchange Store, known as an on-line backup.  If this sounds 
 new to you, you haven't read the FAQ.
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 9:50 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: BackUp
 
 
 I am going to use NTBackup to back up my exchange box. I have 
 selected system state, C: drive and Exchange.
 
 Are there any issues with doing this? Any recommendations?
 
 Thanks,
 
 
 Mike Carlson
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.domitianx.com
 
 Master Of The Spoon People
 Keeper Of None
  
 
 _
 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: backup

[Mike Carlson]

Welp. I mispoke about info in the Faq. I was looking in the 5.5 FAQ. 2k
faq seems to have a bit more.


Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.domitianx.com

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Mike Carlson 
 Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 10:35 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: backup
 
 
 It does sound new to me, but I found very little in the FAQ 
 about back up except what to use.
 
 I find the FAQ not very useful. Things like Open File Agent = 
 BAD without an explanation is useless.
 
 The only reference I found was to an Exchange 5.5 whitepaper 
 on MS's website.
 
 The discuss_exch2000 group has 10 entries for backup.
 
 The MS info I found here: 
 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/tec
 hnet/prodt
 echnol/exchange/maintain/operate/opsguide/e2kops5.asp
 
 It talks about off line storage but it doesn't talk about how 
 I should stop the services to do an off-line backup. Do I 
 have to manually stop everything first? I am backing up to 
 disk using NTBackup.
 
 
 Mike Carlson
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.domitianx.com
 
 Master Of The Spoon People
 Keeper Of None
  
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Josefowski, Larry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 8:54 PM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: RE: backup
  
  
  Have you backed up the server before?  The NT backup on the
  Exchange server is a little different, and backs up the 
  Exchange Store, known as an on-line backup.  If this sounds 
  new to you, you haven't read the FAQ.
  
  -Original Message-
  From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 9:50 PM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: BackUp
  
  
  I am going to use NTBackup to back up my exchange box. I have
  selected system state, C: drive and Exchange.
  
  Are there any issues with doing this? Any recommendations?
  
  Thanks,
  
  
  Mike Carlson
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  http://www.domitianx.com
  
  Master Of The Spoon People
  Keeper Of None
  
  
  _
  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: backup

[Mike Carlson]

Welp. The E2k faq wasn't much better.

Am I going to do any damage from a online backup? Is there anything I
should look out for?  What is the proper procedure for an offline
backup.

Any help is appreciated.


Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.domitianx.com

Master Of The Spoon People
Keeper Of None
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Mike Carlson 
 Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 10:37 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: backup
 
 
 Welp. I mispoke about info in the Faq. I was looking in the 
 5.5 FAQ. 2k faq seems to have a bit more.
 
 
 Mike Carlson
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.domitianx.com
 
 Master Of The Spoon People
 Keeper Of None
  
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Mike Carlson
  Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 10:35 PM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: RE: backup
  
  
  It does sound new to me, but I found very little in the FAQ
  about back up except what to use.
  
  I find the FAQ not very useful. Things like Open File Agent =
  BAD without an explanation is useless.
  
  The only reference I found was to an Exchange 5.5 whitepaper
  on MS's website.
  
  The discuss_exch2000 group has 10 entries for backup.
  
  The MS info I found here:
  http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/tec
  hnet/prodt
  echnol/exchange/maintain/operate/opsguide/e2kops5.asp
  
  It talks about off line storage but it doesn't talk about how
  I should stop the services to do an off-line backup. Do I 
  have to manually stop everything first? I am backing up to 
  disk using NTBackup.
  
  
  Mike Carlson
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  http://www.domitianx.com
  
  Master Of The Spoon People
  Keeper Of None
  
  
   -Original Message-
   From: Josefowski, Larry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
   Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 8:54 PM
   To: Exchange Discussions
   Subject: RE: backup
   
   
   Have you backed up the server before?  The NT backup on 
 the Exchange 
   server is a little different, and backs up the Exchange 
 Store, known 
   as an on-line backup.  If this sounds new to you, you 
 haven't read 
   the FAQ.
   
   -Original Message-
   From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
   Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 9:50 PM
   To: Exchange Discussions
   Subject: BackUp
   
   
   I am going to use NTBackup to back up my exchange box. I have 
   selected system state, C: drive and Exchange.
   
   Are there any issues with doing this? Any recommendations?
   
   Thanks,
   
   
   Mike Carlson
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   http://www.domitianx.com
   
   Master Of The Spoon People
   Keeper Of None
   
   
   _
   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: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe

[Mike Carlson]

 is that no other email
program such as Eudora, Groupwise, Netscape block these attachments. All
Microsoft had to do was to either disable the dangerous capabilities of
.asp,.vbs, (et al) code OR entirely block access to this code.  IT WAS
AS SIMPLE AS THAT!!  

Geezz, what's with some of you in this (supposed to be?) friendly
discussions group? 

I sent a message asking about this (yes, I admit it was confrontational)
and I read return responses basically calling me an idiot based on inane
assumptions!   

Of course, I had to risk installing this patch because the risk of an
Outlook-based virus outbreak out weighted the potential annoyance of
breaking Outlook.  BTW, I have never experienced a virus outbreak in the
6 years I've been with this company because of my pro-active stance on
these issues.

Message to Lori:
Project Plan and Test Plan Results???  For such a typically minor
patch? How many IT people do you have in your organization? The last
time I had the time to do anything like that was in 98/99 for Y2K. I'm
beginning to feel very small; am I the only IT person in this discussion
group with an IT budget less than my wage?

Message to Andy David:
See note about inane assumptions.

Over and out,
Shawn

 -Original Message-
From:   Exchange Discussions digest [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent:   November 6, 2001 1:00 AM
To: exchange digest recipients
Subject:exchange digest: November 05, 2001

Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe
at tach ments
From: Mike Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 09:38:28 -0600
X-Message-Number: 38

It amazes me when people complain about this patch. First developers
wanted the ability to autmoate/script everything to customize it for
their environment. Give us the tools! Give us the ability! Well
Microsoft did. Now that users and administrators are too stupid, yes I
mean stupid, to be mindful of attachments and security issues, they now
blame Microsoft for releasing a buggy product. Its like blaming a car
company, when you get rear-ended, for your brake lights being out.

Similarily, the current crap about IIS being insecure is the same
situation. If the system administrators would apply patches when they
come out, and properly configure the machines, they would have no
problems.

When a company like Microsoft has to write into their application a
security process that the administrators should do themselves, you have
no one to blame but moron users and incompetant administrators.

No one in our company had the ability, except admins, to open .exe,
.vbs, wsh files from Outlook before they released the patch. We have a
policy that everything must be in .zip or other compressed archive
format like .sit or .tar. This way we can limit the vulnerabilites we
have.

People want it easy to use and administer. With that comes
responsibility. If you cant take responsibility, you do not deserve your
job.

BTW: A company I do development for, fired 2 administrators because they
got hacked by Code Red and Nimda. They were too stupid and incompetent
to install patches that had been out for quite a long time.

So again, blame stupid users and lazy administrators, not Microsoft.

Also, if you blindly install patches and fixes without reading the
documentation first and then testing the patches, your job should be on
shakey ground.

-Original Message-
From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=20
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 8:50 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe
at tach ments


Sue Mosher and I (and so many many others) made it a personal goal to
speak ill of this patch whenever possible.  In fact, we only refer to it
as the Hell Patch.  Not sure who coined that one but it does fit.

So Shawn, can you show me your Project Plan and Test Plan Results for
the application of this patch in a production environment?  Or did you
just blindly apply it and are now here to get your money back?

No soup for you.  NEXT!!

-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 8:16 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe
at tach ments


Ahhh, I love it..
If you had bothered to do even a little research before applying the SP
you would have known this... But of course, it's Microsoft's fault.




_
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

RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe

[Mike Carlson]

!

 Of course, I had to risk installing this patch because the risk of an 
 Outlook-based virus outbreak out weighted the potential annoyance of 
 breaking Outlook.  BTW, I have never experienced a virus outbreak in 
 the 6 years I've been with this company because of my pro-active 
 stance on these issues.

 Message to Lori:
 Project Plan and Test Plan Results???  For such a typically minor 
 patch? How many IT people do you have in your organization? The last 
 time I had the time to do anything like that was in 98/99 for Y2K. I'm

 beginning to feel very small; am I the only IT person in this 
 discussion group with an IT budget less than my wage?

 Message to Andy David:
 See note about inane assumptions.

 Over and out,
 Shawn

  -Original Message-
 From: Exchange Discussions digest [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: November 6, 2001 1:00 AM
 To: exchange digest recipients
 Subject: exchange digest: November 05, 2001

 Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially 
 unsafe at tach ments
 From: Mike Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 09:38:28 -0600
 X-Message-Number: 38

 It amazes me when people complain about this patch. First developers 
 wanted the ability to autmoate/script everything to customize it for 
 their environment. Give us the tools! Give us the ability! Well 
 Microsoft did. Now that users and administrators are too stupid, yes I

 mean stupid, to be mindful of attachments and security issues, they 
 now blame Microsoft for releasing a buggy product. Its like blaming a 
 car company, when you get rear-ended, for your brake lights being out.

 Similarily, the current crap about IIS being insecure is the same 
 situation. If the system administrators would apply patches when they 
 come out, and properly configure the machines, they would have no 
 problems.

 When a company like Microsoft has to write into their application a 
 security process that the administrators should do themselves, you 
 have no one to blame but moron users and incompetant administrators.

 No one in our company had the ability, except admins, to open .exe, 
 .vbs, wsh files from Outlook before they released the patch. We have a

 policy that everything must be in .zip or other compressed archive 
 format like .sit or .tar. This way we can limit the vulnerabilites we 
 have.

 People want it easy to use and administer. With that comes 
 responsibility. If you cant take responsibility, you do not deserve 
 your job.

 BTW: A company I do development for, fired 2 administrators because 
 they got hacked by Code Red and Nimda. They were too stupid and 
 incompetent to install patches that had been out for quite a long 
 time.

 So again, blame stupid users and lazy administrators, not Microsoft.

 Also, if you blindly install patches and fixes without reading the 
 documentation first and then testing the patches, your job should be 
 on shakey ground.

 -Original Message-
 From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=20
 Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 8:50 AM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially 
 unsafe at tach ments


 Sue Mosher and I (and so many many others) made it a personal goal to 
 speak ill of this patch whenever possible.  In fact, we only refer to 
 it as the Hell Patch.  Not sure who coined that one but it does fit.

 So Shawn, can you show me your Project Plan and Test Plan Results for 
 the application of this patch in a production environment?  Or did you

 just blindly apply it and are now here to get your money back?

 No soup for you.  NEXT!!

 -Original Message-
 From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 8:16 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially 
 unsafe at tach ments


 Ahhh, I love it..
 If you had bothered to do even a little research before applying the 
 SP you would have known this... But of course, it's Microsoft's fault.




 _
 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

RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe

[Mike Carlson]

Exactly why MS has to create patches like this particular one.

Morons.

What would be cool is if you could put a lock on their mail box so that
when they open up Outlook there is an administrative message staring
them in the face. Before they could open any email they would have to
click OK and then retype what the administrative message was in a box
exactly as it was. If they don't get it right, they are prompted again.
If a new virus goes around the admin could put a lock on all mailboxes
until they perform those steps.

Kind like yelling at your kids. You tell them something and then you
make them repeat it back to you so that you realize they heard what you
said.

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 5:49 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe


Users will open anything regardless of what you say.
I remember ILOVEYOU, and a user. I had sent out emails all day long
warning about this virus that had penetrated to a few machines before we
had the DAT file for it. Anyhow, after an email an hour all day, I was
talking to this guy about it at his desk. As I am talking, he is looking
at mail and opens it right then! He had a laptop, and I ripped the
PCCard NIC out, but too late. He just stood there and stared at me, as I
turned and ran for my servers. Too late.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Carlson
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 3:45 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe


Yes you should and you do. Edit the registry.

No reason to blame MS for stupid people that open every
clickmetof*ckupyourcomputer.exe they get in an email.

When are people going to take responsibility for stupid stuff they do
and their own incompetence.

If you don't know how to drive are you going to blame the person that
runs into you? If you don't know how to use a shotgun are going to blame
the person who sold you the gun when you blow your arm off?

I am amazed all the time when we get new hires, that cant barely survive
without a sign on their desk reminding them to inhale and exhale
otherwise they will die, and throw them in front of a computer and they
have no clue. We had to send a tech down to help a person log into their
computer. They didn't know how to press CTRL+ALT+DEL. The keyboard had
CTL instead of CTRL on the key.

Or the other fabulous ones that reboot their computer and call us saying
their hard drive crashed when all they did was leave a non-bootable
floppy disk in the drive.

People need to take responsibility and face up to the fact that they are
computer illiterate or just plain dense when it comes to some of this
stuff.

Because people think they are computer geniuses even though they
couldn't tell the difference between \ and / companies like Microsoft
have to put in their application things like this patch.

My wife is a prime example. She will be the first to admint she doesn't
know anything about computers ecept for the applications that she uses
all the time. If I am logged into my computer and she needs it, she logs
into her own account because I have setup her account so that she cant
do any damage to the computer.

Don't blame MS. They are just responding to all the crap they got about
not being secure. If people wouldn't click on every stupid theng they
get via email, MS would ahev NEVER released that patch.

There is no one to blame but morons.

Mike

-Original Message-
From: Wynkoop, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 2:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe


I should have the option to block attachments or not!

Explanation:
Some of us (those who work for universities with stupid staff members
and arrogant professors) don't have the option of blocking attachments
(Gosh forbid we infringe on anyone's academic freedom).  That is
unless we wish to endure a never ending reign of sh*t from above.
Instead we have to work around the vunerabilities found in things such
as VBS, EXE, and COM files (which we have successfully done I might
add).  We managed to succesfully ward off NIMDA, Code Red, and a rash of
other recent viruses without changing what users can and can't do (see,
it can be done).  Now outlook just gives my users one more reason to
jump down my throat when something doesn't work.  Thanks MicroShaft.

John

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 2:45 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe


Even allowing your mail system to pass .EXE and .COM files is a mistake.
You should thank MS for making OL block those types of files since you
don't.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED

Error When Expanding Public Folders in System Manager

[Mike Carlson]

I am running Exchange 2000 and when ever I am in system manager and I
expand the public folders I get an error. The error is 80004005.

I ran system manager on a remote machine and I got a different error.
Something like 800400e46.

Also when I am in OWA and I open the folders shortcut I get a box that
pops up with 16389 on it and an OK button. I assume this is an error
message.

I can view the Public Folder in Outlook 2002. All that is in there is
Favorites and Internet Newsgroups. This is a new install and I am a
newbie getting used to it.

The KB articles mention stuff about IIS. I have all IIS updates
installed and all the Exchange 2k service packs installed.

Any other ideas?

ŠËi¢Ëbž
@Bm§ÿðÃ0Šw¢oëzÊ.­Ç¿{!}ª¡¶`+r¯zÈm¶ŸÿÃ
,Ã)är‰¿²+^±æ«rìyªÜ…«)N‹§²æìr¸›zf¢–Ú%y«Þ{!jx–Ë0Êy¢a1r§ââ²Öš)åŠËZvh§³§‘Ê

RE: Error When Expanding Public Folders in System Manager

[Mike Carlson]

I have tried all the steps except the dll replacement. None of them
worked.
 
Will replacing the dll cause any other problems? I have always been
nervous about replacing newer dlls with older ones. I have always been
of the mind that there is a reason for the newer dll.
 
Thanks,
Mike

-Original Message- 
From: Andy David 
Sent: Fri 11/2/2001 9:30 AM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: Error When Expanding Public Folders in System
Manager



Classic Error Message:
Q279863
or

http://www.wsd2d.com/wsD2D/Tips/Server/{3915A76C-A655-45C6-B604-77D9A20C
923B
}.eml



-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 10:27 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Error When Expanding Public Folders in System Manager


I am running Exchange 2000 and when ever I am in system manager
and I
expand the public folders I get an error. The error is 80004005.

I ran system manager on a remote machine and I got a different
error.
Something like 800400e46.

Also when I am in OWA and I open the folders shortcut I get a
box that
pops up with 16389 on it and an OK button. I assume this is an
error
message.

I can view the Public Folder in Outlook 2002. All that is in
there is
Favorites and Internet Newsgroups. This is a new install and I
am a
newbie getting used to it.

The KB articles mention stuff about IIS. I have all IIS updates
installed and all the Exchange 2k service packs installed.

Any other ideas?

.+--x
m ,)r(ື
\檆b=!6 0 ৑zǚ1r,:.˛
m隊[hy\z[,)rɄZZvh'+-i٢2G(


_
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]


ŠËi¢Ëbž
@Bm§ÿðÃ0Šw¢oëzÊ.­Ç¿{!}ª¡¶`+r¯zÈm¶ŸÿÃ
,Ã)är‰¿²+^±æ«rìyªÜ…«)N‹§²æìr¸›zf¢–Ú%y«Þ{!jx–Ë0Êy¢a1r§ââ²Öš)åŠËZvh§³§‘Ê

OT: Email Address Collection

[Mike Carlson]

I got this email today. It looks like a email address scavenging service
where they finger/brute force the mail server getting to see if they get
responses to requests for email addresses. Has anyone heard of this
before? I would assume this is something that administrators would frown
on greatly since it would seem to flood a mail server for requests.

If anyone has heard of such a thing, has used such a thing or has
opinions on such a thing, that would be greatly appreciated. I do not
want to sign off on this if it will cause problems or get us
blacklisted.

Thanks,

Mike



Please forward to the VP Sales or Marketing Manager.  Thank you.

Improve Sales Data Quality by obtaining and utilizing the email
addresses of
all your Prospects and Customers 

With our unique Email generation service you can improve the quality of
your
sales data and have a big advantage over your competition, reduce time
to
market promotions, lower the cost of marketing and stay in continuous
touch
with your customers.  This is called Intelligent Email Marketing and
is
strategic to the successful marketing of most competitive companies
today.
Please see www.newtechsolutions.com http://www.newtechsolutions.com
for
more information.

Here is the problem that we are proposing to solve:
Many companies want to utilize email as a quick and low cost way to keep
their customers and prospects informed.  But most companies do not have
all
the email addresses of their prospective or existing contacts. The
emails
they do have are usually stored in a disorganized fashion that will not
allow the proper analysis, improvement and addition of Emails.  

This is where our service and technology comes in:
If given the company name, city, state, first and last name of the
contact,
then we can generate about 95% of the missing emails. The process to
obtain
these emails is a proprietary process that utilizes our specialized
software
and techniques.  The result is a list of emails (corresponding to the
names
given) that you can feed back into your sales management system or
database.
Using this process we can take on large jobs, like determining the
emails of
20,000 people at 10,000 companies, and generate the emails quickly.  The
techniques and the software developed to do this does not require
calling
the customer and asking what the email address is.  Calling to obtain
email
address doesn't work. If calling were necessary it would take a long
time,
be very expensive and results in only a small percentage of emails
because
most companies won't give them out.  

The Pain:
The problem for a Sales VP or marketing manager is that they might want
to
leverage the email addresses of thousands of existing and prospective
customers but they don't have them.  They have the company information
and
they have the contact names that they have developed over the years but
they
don't have the email addresses.  This limits the type of marketing they
can
do and the speed with which they can react in the marketplace. If the
company determines that having the emails is critical to their success
then
the question becomes...how do they get them? 

For any MIS manager or VP of Sales, getting emails, is a difficult and
time-consuming process.  It is difficult to obtain emails for two
reasons.
One, most customers and receptionist will not give out their emails if
asked
and two, the sales staff is usually not very good at obtaining and
updating
this type of information. Unlike a fax number, an email address is
considered personal and usually is difficult to get.  

Regarding emails, there are two types of email problems that customers
usually have that we can solve:
1. If the company has customers or prospects with multiple contacts but
they
only have some of the emails then we have a technique for determining
the
emails for the rest of the people at that company.  
2. For prospective customers they may not have any emails in which case
we
would need to start from scratch and determine the emails for all the
individuals.

Products and Services we offer:
1.) Generating valid emails for existing contacts.
2.) Validating emails that already exist.
3.) Providing software that can keep the existing sales database updated
with emails, web sites and faxes.
4.) 5.) We can provide the consulting to help companies set up automated
email marketing.
6.) We can also provide fax numbers and automated fax marketing
assistance.
7.) Consulting so that they can enhance their existing Sales Force
Software
to include intelligent email information.

Improving the quality of your Sales data
We offer a service to improve the quality of sales data so your company
can
be more competitive by being able to do rapid marketing at a reduced
cost.

Staying Competitive
Having all the information, like the emails, will be seen 

RE: Error When Expanding Public Folders in System Manager

[Mike Carlson]

I am using my username and pass to log onto the machine and I have an
account on the exchange server. I dont have to myself in any Exchange
Admin group or anything do I, even tho I think I did.
 
Also, what would cause that error in OWA when I view my folders? I cant
find that number anywhere in the MS KB.
 
Thanks,
Mike

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Harford 
Sent: Fri 11/2/2001 10:32 AM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: Error When Expanding Public Folders in System
Manager



Does the account you are logged on with have a mailbox itself?
This is
necessary to administer PFs.

mark
-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 02 November 2001 15:38
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Error When Expanding Public Folders in System
Manager


I have tried all the steps except the dll replacement. None of
them worked.

Will replacing the dll cause any other problems? I have always
been nervous
about replacing newer dlls with older ones. I have always been
of the mind
that there is a reason for the newer dll.

Thanks,
Mike

-Original Message-
From: Andy David
Sent: Fri 11/2/2001 9:30 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: RE: Error When Expanding Public Folders in
System Manager
   
   

Classic Error Message:
Q279863
or
   

http://www.wsd2d.com/wsD2D/Tips/Server/{3915A76C-A655-45C6-B604-77D9A20C
923B
}.eml
   
   
   
-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 10:27 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Error When Expanding Public Folders in System
Manager
   
   
I am running Exchange 2000 and when ever I am in system
manager and
I
expand the public folders I get an error. The error is
80004005.
   
I ran system manager on a remote machine and I got a
different
error.
Something like 800400e46.
   
Also when I am in OWA and I open the folders shortcut I
get a box
that
pops up with 16389 on it and an OK button. I assume this
is an error
message.
   
I can view the Public Folder in Outlook 2002. All that
is in there
is
Favorites and Internet Newsgroups. This is a new install
and I am a
newbie getting used to it.
   
The KB articles mention stuff about IIS. I have all IIS
updates
installed and all the Exchange 2k service packs
installed.
   
Any other ideas?
   
.+--x
m ,)r(ື
\檆b=!6 0 ৑zǚ1r,:.˛
m隊[hy\z[,)rɄZ Zvh'+-i٢2G(
   
   

_
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]
   

.+--x
m ,)r(ື
\檆b=!6 0 ৑zǚ1r,:.˛
m隊[hy\z[,)rɄZ Zvh찧+-i٢2G(


This e-mail, and any attachment, is confidential. If you have
received
it in error, please delete it from your system, do not use or
disclose
the information in any way, and notify me immediately. The
contents of
this message may contain personal views which are not the views
of the
BBC, unless specifically stated.


_
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]


ŠËi¢Ëbž
@Bm§ÿðÃ0Šw¢oëzÊ.­Ç¿{!}ª¡¶`+r¯zÈm¶ŸÿÃ
,Ã)är‰¿²+^±æ«rìyªÜ…«)N‹§²æìr¸›zf¢–Ú%y«Þ{!jx–Ë0Êy¢a1r§ââ²Öš)åŠËZvh§³§‘Ê

RE: OWA Email Format

[Mike Carlson]

Exchange 2k.

-Original Message- 
From: Tony Hlabse 
Sent: Fri 11/2/2001 12:58 PM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: OWA Email Format



What version? of OWA

- Original Message -
From: Mike Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 1:33 PM
Subject: OWA Email Format


 How do I change the format of the email that is sent out using
OWA? I
 have exchange set to only send email in plain text, but when
using OWA
 they are not plain text.

 Thanks,

 Mike

 .
 rí½¶ zrmyzr vi


_
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]


â²Úh²Ø§€P†Ûiÿü0Â̝Ç(›úÞ²‹«qïÞÅÈ_j¨m˜
܆+Þ²m§ÿðÃ0Êy¢oìŠ×¬yªÜ‡ûj·!jÊS¢éì¹»®Þ™¨¥¶‰^j÷žÅÈZž¥²Ì2žG(˜L\…©àx¸¬µ§fŠyb²Öš)ìÃ)är‰

RE: Error When Expanding Public Folders in System Manager

[Mike Carlson]

OK. That makes more sense. I thought you meant rename my organization in
Exchange. I was all worried.
 
I have thought of that, just havent gotten there yet.
 
Thanks,
Mike

-Original Message- 
From: Tony Hlabse 
Sent: Fri 11/2/2001 1:00 PM 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Error When Expanding Public Folders in System
Manager



rename the original dll file name to *.something

- Original Message -
From: Mike Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 1:31 PM
Subject: RE: Error When Expanding Public Folders in System
Manager


 Rename the org? Where do I do this at? I am a bit of a newbie
as this is
 my first Exchange box I have setup. How would this resolve the
problem?

 Thanks,
 Mike

 -Original Message-
 From: Tony Hlabse
 Sent: Fri 11/2/2001 12:18 PM
 To: Exchange Discussions
 Cc:
 Subject: Re: Error When Expanding Public Folders in System
 Manager



 Just rename the org. too *.org or something. You can always go
 back.
 - Original Message -
 From: Mike Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 10:38 AM
 Subject: RE: Error When Expanding Public Folders in System
 Manager


  I have tried all the steps except the dll replacement. None
of
 them
  worked.
 
  Will replacing the dll cause any other problems? I have
always
 been
  nervous about replacing newer dlls with older ones. I have
 always been
  of the mind that there is a reason for the newer dll.
 
  Thanks,
  Mike
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Andy David
  Sent: Fri 11/2/2001 9:30 AM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Cc:
  Subject: RE: Error When Expanding Public Folders in System
  Manager
 
 
 
  Classic Error Message:
  Q279863
  or
 
 

http://www.wsd2d.com/wsD2D/Tips/Server/{3915A76C-A655-45C6-B604-77D9A20C
  923B
  }.eml
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 10:27 AM
  To: Exchange Discussions
  Subject: Error When Expanding Public Folders in System
Manager
 
 
  I am running Exchange 2000 and when ever I am in system
 manager
  and I
  expand the public folders I get an error. The error is
 80004005.
 
  I ran system manager on a remote machine and I got a
different
  error.
  Something like 800400e46.
 
  Also when I am in OWA and I open the folders shortcut I get
a
  box that
  pops up with 16389 on it and an OK button. I assume this is
an
  error
  message.
 
  I can view the Public Folder in Outlook 2002. All that is in
  there is
  Favorites and Internet Newsgroups. This is a new install and
I
  am a
  newbie getting used to it.
 
  The KB articles mention stuff about IIS. I have all IIS
 updates
  installed and all the Exchange 2k service packs installed.
 
  Any other ideas?
 
  .+--x
m ,)r(ື
\檆b=!6 0 ৑zǚ1r,:.˛
  m隊[hy\z[,)rɄZZvh'+-i٢2G(
 
 
 

_
  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]
 
 
  .+x
 )r뺷  íŸ˜í¶½   zǭȱr:楞˱m [y z[)rÉ vh˖+i̞ٞG



_
 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]


 .+x
 )r뺷  íŸ˜í¶½   zǭȱr:楞˱m [y z[)rÉ vh˖+i̞ٞG

POP3/IMAP

[Mike Carlson]

Can I turn off POP3 and IMAP services? These are not used so I figured I
could free some resources.
 
Thanks,
Mike
.+-¦‹-Šx
m¶ŸÿÃ,Â)Ür‰¿­ë(º·ýì\…öª†Ù€­Èb½ë!¶Úÿ0³
§‘ÊþÈ­zǚ­È±æ«r¬¥:.žË›±Êâm隊[h•æ¯yì\…©àz[,Ã)är‰„ÅÈZž‹ŠËZvh§–+-iÙ¢žÌ2žG(