Gift - Something that is bestowed voluntarily and without compensation
Award - To grant as merited or due
Compensation - Something, such as money, given or received as payment or
reparation, as for a service or loss.
I don't see MVP status as being a gift. Seems to me that it would be an
award
This is also a good site to look at if you need to figure out issues with
DNS.
http://www.dnsreport.com/
-Original Message-
From: Chinnery, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:10 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: SMTP mail not reaching Exchange Server
How much mail can Exchange process? A lot.
If you understand how an e-mail is handled with Exchange SMTP services, you
can design the server (include memory, processor and disk layout) you can
make it fly.
I stress tested the IIS SMTP to see what I could get out of it. I rated the
box at over
check out other professions and their views on accepting honorary titles.
googling
Dr. receives honorary degree
lawyer receives honorary degree
Just for reference.
-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 11:25 AM
To: Exchange
Some more information on Professional Ethic
http://www.westga.edu/~rlane/professional/lecture_professionsprofessionaliz
ation2.html
For those with any interest.
-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 11:25 AM
To: Exchange
Interestingly enough you state that you are a professional and yet make a
statement like that. I in no way have attacked you and only posted those
(and another link) on professionals and ethics. My statement was not an
attack, only a point of reference. If you remember, I was also the only
person
http://www.doctorupdate.net/du_awards/category.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2093852.stm
http://suewidemark.netfirms.com/drugcompaniesprofiles.htm
http://www.globalaging.org/health/us/curb2.htm
To the AMA's credit they seem to be concerned, but the last article shows
that little will be
You can use ISA. It's not that hard to set up and works well. Added bonus
for those with the need is the ability to add RSA authentication to the ISA
server. Users must use a key fob to authenticate before they even get to the
OWA boxes. You can also use another type of proxy server (Squid for
IIRC they've changed their pricing structure from per seat to per proc.
Huge difference. Why don't you call them and find out.
-Original Message-
From: Hague, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 9:50 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Tumbleweed
So
I received and read this book (closer to a booklet than a book) Friday. The
author does a fairly good job of translating some basic TQM principles as
they relate to IT. The book is an easy read but could have used more real
world scenarios to emphasize certain points. As far as the philosophy of
I'll kindly ask you to get off of my soapbox.
My favorite one I've heard lately: Well, it uses fiber to attach to the SAN
so it's much faster for Exchange.
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:50 PM
To: Exchange
Deal
-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: A CHALLENGE to the List
Well, it appears that a number of individuals from this list have chosen to
engage in childish and cowardly ad hominem
Now THAT is funny.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:28 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: A CHALLENGE to the List
Send it on, I'll return it at my own expense once I am done lest one
consider that I took
Finally tossed out the pink sundress?
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:20 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: RPC over HTTP Compatibility
That's no rumor, I'm wearing a pair now with my leather shorts.
From: Tony
Microsoft Exchange engineers are a dime a dozen
Good ones are difficult to find and even more difficult to pry away from
their current employer. After interviewing Exchange admins over the last
few years I've found that most people that put Exchange experience on their
resume have added or
There is a whole mailing list of these dime-a-dozens :)
-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 8:54 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Notes vs. Exchange
Microsoft Exchange engineers are a dime a dozen
Good ones are difficult
http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
-Original Message-
From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 2:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: AD Discussion Forum?
There is also a AD discussion list over at Sunbelt Software.
Ben Winzenz
Network
There was an excellent explanation by Ed Woodrick on the topic of compacting
the Exchange store back on March 15, 2002 if you'd like to look in the
archives.
Unless asked for, I won't repost it.
-Original Message-
From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003
be justify because I still have one
AV in the Exchange that might have your 2 points problem.
thanks
-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 9:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Scan Gateway
Currently we're the same way
A... A financial institution.
One of the nice features of KVS is the ability to allow your compliance
officers to search only those mailboxes for the areas that they are
responsible for. It cuts way down on the false positives that will happen
with more common words. It also allows you to
Currently we're the same way.
There are two other advantages of having a dedicated gateway scanner. It's
typical for the AV vendors to have one or two bad virus definition files a
year. I've seen them totally hose up a box when they're real bad. If you
have that at the gateway, your internal mail
Custom recipient.
-Original Message-
From: Russell Hopkinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:34 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Changing the Domain on Outbound Messages
Sorry, I guess I wasn't as clear as I'd thought:
We need to change the
Host not found. No such domain.
-Original Message-
From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 10:28 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: What does it mean?
- Transcript of session follows -
550 5.1.2 [EMAIL PROTECTED]... Host unknown (Name
You can use the propagate these properties to all subfolders to do bulk
moves to another server.
-Original Message-
From: Uso [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 8:00 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Bulk Public Folder Replication?
Hi,
is there an easy way to
Tumbleweed is going to get a lot more customers now.
-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 5:06 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption
It would depend on who you are e-mailing to. If you have
It would depend on who you are e-mailing to. If you have a limited amount of
customers or clients PGP or S/MIME is not a bad implementation. If you have
many customers that would not be able to set up PGP for whatever reason you
should look at something that will take the message and send it to a
We've front ended ours with an ISA server with RSA authentication. Timeouts
can be set to either x minutes of non-usage (or will be once they fix a
little bug) or x minutes of usage. Once it's timed out, you're done. There
is also a piece of sample code that they give you that can wipe the session
Yeah. You should see the developers run whenever Chris starts walking
towards them.
Andy, you forgot to tell me about that direct compensation you get for
being an MVP. Unless he's talking about that t-shirt?
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday,
Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 7:22 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Shortcuts to Outlook objects
Yeah. You should see the developers run whenever Chris starts walking
towards them.
Andy, you forgot to tell me about
plonk
-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 11:29 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Shortcuts to Outlook objects
And everyone could do everything that they do now in terms of helping people
WITHOUT the MVP status. So
-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 7:09 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me.
That's because your security guy doesn't have to support the desktops or pay
for training users in a new OS. Tell him to cut
That would depend on who the contact is with. If you are talking about SEC
Rule 240.17a-4 then you may need to retain conversations. The real
difference to me is that e-mail is legally considered a document and that IM
is no different from a telephone conversation. Should we wire tap all the
I want a syrup warmer.
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 3:24 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: RBL Article
Next you'll want built-in antivirus and firewall and content filter and
catch-all mailbox and
Thirded. The other benefit is the lower costs. A BCV volume for EMC is
essentially a mirror of your existing set of spindles (which are probably
mirrored). The DB is shut down and the mirror is broken and mounted
elsewhere for backup to tape. In order to remount that mirror for the next
day,
But they are so shiny...
Quack.
EMC has been working with Oracle closely to do instant backups. I haven't
looked too much at the Hitachi SANs and don't know what they are capable of.
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002
You're going to carve up the disks and share spindles with critcal servers
running high intensive databases?
snicker
Good luck.
-Original Message-
From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 10:52 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: the IBM Shark
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 12:18 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: the IBM Shark
:p that could be solved with proper planning and good lun management.
-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 9
And you forget to bring beer.
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 7:31 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: STORE.EXE loves memory
Seems like I'm always late to the party.
The students are employed by the school so it's a business e-mail address
not the student one. They have every right to do what they want.
Yes, you can use the encapsulated x.400 address but in this case I don't
think anyone would make the effort to do that.
-Original Message-
From:
Blind Carbon Copy.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:rrivera;elnuevodia.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 8:54 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: How did I receive this?
I just received an email (and possibly others in my company) but it did not
have a 'To:'
There used to be a good white paper written by Compaq and Microsoft called
Managing and Monitoring Microsoft(r) Exchange Server. I can't find it on
either site anymore.
I'll send it to you offline if you would like.
-Original Message-
From: Marshall, Ben F. [mailto:ben.marshall;usaa.com]
Found it on Active Answers finally. You'll need to register on their site to
get it.
http://tinyurl.com/2p7g
-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:28 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Performance Monitoring Question
Amen! You'd be surprised how many times that important document isn't
worth the $50.00 charge to their cost center.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 9:17 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sent Item
3. Ask the user
? Seems like it should be $50/hr or something
like that . . . With a minimum charge, of course!
James Winzenz, MCSE, A+
Associate Systems Administrator
InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity
-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:JSchwartz;BBandT.com]
Sent: Wednesday
To be kept in the life style that you wish to become accustomed to. g
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 8:32 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: somewhat OT
Who knows? I'd love to retire today. If I can only
Many organizations see messaging as a transport system or a communication
system and fail to see the significant body of knowledge that is captured in
the e-mails. The problem arises with this data not being organized into
easily searchable information. Archival solutions are really a patch on top
Hello! [1]
Frankly. I run the mail system for a business. Decisions about who and what
arrives into my mail systems is BUSINESS decision. The folks who run the RBL
systems are technologists. They make TECHNOLOGY decisions. They have no idea
about my business needs so I would never allow them to
For WinNT 4.0 in H-node - Q142309 Q119493 is a good article describing the
different node types.
NetBIOS name cache
WINS server - 3 queries 1.5 second timeout.
B-node broadcast - 3 broadcasts with 750ms timeout.
LMHOSTS file
HOSTS file
DNS server
I thought I read somewhere that Win2K reverses
Ah, yes. I recall that incident.
If you choose to use a RBL, read very carefully what the criteria is to be
placed on their lists. As Darcy said before, some of these folks block
entire netblocks. There is one or two that I know of that have blocked the
entire Sprintlink netblock. That's
There is a fairly good white paper on this subject here:
http://www.ferris.com/
Look for White Paper: Email Archiving Records Management in the sponsored
research section. It also lists a number of vendors that can accommodate
your needs.
-Original Message-
From: James Liddil
Please include a copy of the NDR.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel L. Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 1:38 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: SMTP to aol.com
What would cause my messages to AOL addresses to be rejected by AOL? I can
send reliably
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Schwartz, Jim
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:46 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Content Filtering
You forgot the quack.
There have been numerous discussions regarding content filtering and how it
works. Decide what you are willing
You forgot the quack.
There have been numerous discussions regarding content filtering and how it
works. Decide what you are willing to risk in lost mail, or additional
manpower resources versus what you are trying to accomplish. Then go find
the tool that meets those requirements.
Looking a
You pronounce it the same way it is spelled.
Kind of sounds like spitting out a watermelon seed. [1]
[1] Begging forgiveness from Kimmie for stealing her line.
-Original Message-
From: Ray Beckwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 1:14 PM
To: Exchange
http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq_sec3.htm 3.35
-Original Message-
From: Williams Scott CTR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 12:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Storage Limit warnings
Is there a way to customize the warnings that Exchange 5.5 sends
You can set that under a configuration setting in the System Attendant.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 11:54 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: message tracking logs
You should configure the message tracking log
Some mailers get ornery about sending to a domain without and MX record.
They expect to see and MX record and they should default to the A record if
the MX record is not available, but they don't always do it well.
Go Huskies!
-Original Message-
From: Sandhya Pai [mailto:[EMAIL
Unless you would like to offload such things as gateway antivirus protection
and content screening. Those are good applications to put on relay servers
like you are talking about.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 12:02 PM
To:
You would need to add another layer to that. Block sender to recipient. One
mans UCE may be what someone else wants to see. It would be a pretty
intensive application to do those types of lookups. All you are doing at the
point is centralizing the delete junk mail rule that users may have set up.
But you're a bank...
What about Tivoli?
Tries to keep a straight face
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 3:41 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Monitoring application for Exchange
Just swamped and the head honcho
Well, your TCO just went up by doing BLB. The cost for the extra tapes, the
lost time that the drives are backing up data that has already been backed
up when they could be backing up something else(opportunity costs) and staff
costs to restore and item that could have been undeleted by the user.
: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 2:52 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail loop
OOO was disabled when I disabled forward to internet. Any more ideas? I
think the problem in on the receiving end.
Thanks,
Kelly
-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent
, see if that helps.
-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 21:37
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: A mistake was made...
If it is offensive and you don't want users reading the item then ExMerge
will work. From Q260037
could recover from that... there's a difference :)
-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 13:14
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: A mistake was made...
You can still recover from that. Get a big magnet and go to town
hands Gary a cigar
-Original Message-
From: Clark, John A (FUSA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 1:43 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: MEC 2002
It appears as though he needs a lot more than just a beer
-Original Message-
From: Darcy Adams
Limit the number of connections and limit the size of the mail. Connection
reset. Bye-bye.
If you're so concerned with not exposing your Exchange server directly to
the internet, then place a relay server behind your firewall to accept mail
from External sources and then pass the mail to your
on my network?
Wow
Don Ely - NMBOTWBAS and then some
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:24 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
Limit the number of connections
Not to mention that some of the net nazi black hole lists will add your
domain because they hate HTML so much.
-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 10:19 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Adding some HTML to all
If it is offensive and you don't want users reading the item then ExMerge
will work. From Q260037:
If the original message was forwarded with a different subject, the ExMerge
utility cannot delete the message based on the original message subject line
or MTS-ID.
If the Item Retention option is
channel 89, that does not destroy the source. It might lead to a garbage
collection exercise that will cause a purge to occur, but deleting the views
is not deleting the data.
-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 1:37 PM
But will it warm the syrup for my waffles?
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 8:54 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Messaging collaboration (Unified Messaging)
But,but! The magazine on the plane said that the next
Yes, but IBM finds this compelling need to place an e on to everything for
some odd reason. I wonder how much the marketing genius got paid for coming
up with that idea.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:44 AM
To: Exchange
Translation for the reading impaired: leave it alone.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook appointments on Exchange
My rigorous Exchange maintenance involves a beer and
Below inline.
-Original Message-
From: Lindsay Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 11:06 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: SMTP log analysis
Okay I need an opinion on exactly what is going on in this log file. Just a
fresh opinion to see if I'm just being
Bankers! g
The SMTP address should be unique and you may be able to code the web app to
get that information, but it's a lot of work in place of having the user do
it themselves.
-Original Message-
From: Hatley, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 11:44 AM
To:
Yes, but the server installs the application so fast that I don't have time
to read it.
-Original Message-
From: missy koslosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 3:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Installing Exchange Admin on .net server
There's
Brackets around the rcpt to:
-Original Message-
From: Ed Esgro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 5:05 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: SMTP message
I am using Exchange Server 5.5
I am using an application that establishes an SMTP connection to my SMTP
server
I guess the point of it would be YMMV. Depending on your traffic patterns,
your need to regulate traffic between sites by size and or times or to
throttle the connection. With E2K you put in your best guess and if it's not
what you need, it's not that hard to change it. We have two main data
Two reasons possible.
An orphaned object still exists for that address in the DL that they are
sending to or one of the users still has the user listed as a delegate.
-Original Message-
From: Olds, Dominic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 9:29 AM
To: Exchange
Depends on the version of Outlook. Back level clients will query the E2K
server which uses DSproxy services to do the lookup for the client. Outlook
2000 and XP are given a nearby GC server to do it's own lookups.
-Original Message-
From: Gagrani, Kishore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
/2002 (98 2000 in CW mode only).
Siegfried /
-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 11:37 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: LDAP in Exchange 2000
Depends on the version of Outlook. Back level clients will query the
E2K
I'll have you know that I've obtained the rank of Degenerate, 1st Class.
-Original Message-
From: Felicity Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 4:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Group Mail
BTW- I think most of you guys are a bunch of perverts, in
If your management likes Gartner reports, they suggest that the must move
off 5.5 date to be 2Q04.
When you think about non-support, you should also factor in that more and
more technical folks are moving to E2K. The list of people that can run a
5.5 organization is going to get shorter and
OK. Make it so.
I have like 30 domains that we accept mail for. Please give some more
details on EXACTLY what you want to accomplish and we can try to help you
out. Otherwise we're guessing or making stuff up. Some people on this list
have very vivid imaginations and you wouldn't want that.
Wrong side of The Pond...
-Original Message-
From: Clark, John A (FUSA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:16 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Virus Attack ??
Did someone wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning??? YIKES!!
-Original
Basically it means you're waiting on AD to give Exchange the location of the
mail server the mailbox resides on or what action to do with the mail. It's
waiting on a response from AD.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 11:25
For a minute I thought they finally made a movie about me.
-Original Message-
From: David Florea [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 4:04 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Cerification question
Poop. J. C., not J. S..
-Original
Mongo S.O.L.
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 4:28 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Messed up PST
Mongo no backup pst.
-Original Message-
From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:
What about a workflow/compliance application? For example, a message is sent
by user A to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The message needs to be checked for
compliance to state/federal laws. (i.e. can't say guarantee when talking
about investments) The compliance officer then needs to pass the message
along
-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 11:45 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another
What about a workflow/compliance application? For example, a
message is sent
by user A to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The message needs
Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 11:52 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another
OK.
A Dr. wants to send medical records to the CDC or other informational
gathering body. The e-mail needs
The Olds still in the shop?
Jim, check the archives. This topic has been hammered to death. Short answer
is, have you management set the business requirement of how large they need
to get and design to that.
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday,
I'll use the same argument Doug used for the BCC question.
How did you prevent someone from taking a typed memo and making photocopies
of it?
-Original Message-
From: Bibel, Laura Y. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 1:08 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject:
.
Since you work for a bank, Im betting that you guys still
type out memos.
Original message
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 13:16:30 -0400
From: Schwartz, Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Prevent the forwarding of an email message.
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED
message.
Since you work for a bank, Im betting that you guys still
type out memos.
Original message
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 13:16:30 -0400
From: Schwartz, Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Prevent the forwarding of an email message.
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL
Compaq has a utility called Meatgrinder. They don't let anyone have it of
course, unless you're a Compaq engineer. (Or they accidentally leave the
executable on the server they are testing). See if Dell has a similar one.
It lets you stress any part of the system from the CPU to the drives.
I get the ones about holding my...
Never mind.
I used to get them for a while and found that some emails were not getting
to us in a timely manner and then I would get the nasty gram. Look into your
inbound mail and check connections. Do some testing to see if you can
connect via SMTP regularly.
300? Small potatoes. Your IMS will always have a few messages sitting in it
from NDR's, and bounces. You can also adjust the time out values to get rid
of them faster if you like or change the retry rate if that makes you happy.
If I see an outbound queue that is totally empty, then I get worried
an application that requires MDAC2.6 or later to go on our NT4
servers. [it's the Bindview Migration re-permissioning agent btw)
I'll probably check it out next week if you can wait.
-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 14 March 2002 18:53
To: 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
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
