Well, titles can be very handy - we have an honours system in the UK that
would seem to back that up.
But they are not as valuable as personal reputation as is evidenced by the
number of people that refuse these titles on point of principle - often very
publicly. (As you have done with your MVP,
We use MessageLabs for virus and Spam filtering.
The service we get is generally good flexible but they do seem to be
under-resourced leading to occasional delays in mail processing at their
end.
We've also had problems with SpamCop others classing one of their clients
as a Spam source and
So you only transfer mail within systems over which you have complete
control?
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 December 2003 13:09
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outsourcing email?
I personally don't trust other's handing my mail - then
I totally appreciate Paul's point of not wanting another potential delay
that you can't control imposed but the data security aspect I don't
understand. Email, if unencrypted, is insecure.
If you are emailing something unencrypted outside your organisation you
should assume it is public
If all you care about is out of site, out of mind I still don't see the
worry - at some point you pass over the handling of these mail items to
someone else and at that point you have no control. This is just moving
that boundary / adding another layer beyond it.
Very few of us outside those who
I suppose.
Any organisation I've worked for that cares that much uses dedicated
networks for data transfer to third parties it has to trust and places
controls on what sort of information can be allowed onto public networks.
I wouldn't trust the public networks with anything I wanted to keep
No, it's not bunk.
You care about more and that's great but if, like the previous poster, all
you care about is that Once it's picked up by a server from my gateway
machine, it's out of my control, and also no longer my worry. then the
presence in the chain of a third party is not significant.
Greg wrote:
Well, you're missing the big picture and the whole point, but yes, if you
paid Microsoft, even one dollar, then it would not be such an egregious
breach of ethics.
Well if you aren't smoking crack / eating babies / whatever else it is
you're not doing then maybe you should start
Greg wrote:
What I said was, today we have a choice to either regulate
ourselves or to wait for government to regulate us. That is what I said. I
am more than happy to wait around for government to regulate us, that's
why I don't bring up this whole ethics discussion. The computer industry
is not
That's an issue of public funds not an issue of professionalism.
Standards are rightly higher in the public sector. There was, I would
imagine, never any question of people not being allowed to have those
jackets but the regulations are such that a ruling was necessary.
This is motivated by
Shotton Jolyon would like to recall the message, Greg's Utterly Fascinating
Views on Ethics.
The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or
entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that
is exempt from disclosure by law and if you
Sorry - speed read this before I replied - based my answer on your statement
that you *have* your jacket - read resign as rule.
My point about probity with public funds stands but that case does show that
in some areas people are more ethical than you. (You do have that jacket,
right?)
I suggest you think of a way to spend less time deleting it.
-Original Message-
From: Jason Rader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 December 2003 18:37
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Can't this be moved to personal emails. I spend far
We can all be childish.
I think Ed has a case that there is no perceived conflict of interest - his
employer is happy and the majority of this list is happy for him to be a
Microsoft MVP.
Many of us are the sort of people that might employ his services and we are
not deterred in the least by the
I really must apologise for that moment of panic.
And apologise for this apology which I am sure is of no use to anyone.
Where will it all end? I feel like I'm watching the intro to Monty Python
and the Holy Grail.
And the Vikings sketch.
Anyway.
Sorry.
-Original Message-
From:
Very true.
But surely the greater motivational force in these cases would be If they
don't go for product X in which I am an expert they will not employ me.
rather than If they don't go for product X in which I am an MVP then there
will be a slightly smaller online user community for me to help
To the extent that either side in this debate is guilty of this fallacy,
both are.
It is not really an appropriate area for proof.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 December 2003 18:58
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating
There are admins?
Anyway, just setting a rule is quicker or sorting by topic (and who does not
filter out discussion lists into threaded folders?) and mass deleting.
But I quite enjoyed the direct action approach.
-Original Message-
From: Sirius F. Crackhoe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blimey, Greg, I can't believe people aren't making puerile jokes involving
the transposition of a vowel in your surname.
This is how I see the two sides:
Greg: Mine horse is higher than thine. I am as important as anyone, my job
is as important as any job. I want to be able to boast of the
GD wrote: Accepting
direct gifts from third parties, especially significant gifts such as
large dollar items and titles, presents a real or perceived conflict of
interest between an IT professional's client (either the customer or
company that he or she works for) and that third party.
Well I
GD wrote: I am not sure why you
are so certain that the project was severly underscoped
Erm, could it be down to the fact that the budget was allocated before the
consultant even knew which GroupWise client was most suitable for the task?
The information contained in this e-mail is intended for
GD wrote: I am not sure why you
are so certain that the project was severly underscoped
Erm, could it be down to the fact that the budget was allocated before the
consultant even knew which GroupWise client was most suitable for the task?
The information contained in this e-mail is intended for
Would that make the rest of us Deckler's Hecklers?
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 15 December 2003 23:41
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Day 3: Lessons Learned GW6.5 to Exchange 2000
We should change the name of this list to Deckler's
Spam.
I'd be cross if you sent that to me.
If you know me well enough to mention it and you think I'd be interested you
can tell me when we're down the pub, otherwise you can keep this and
anything else that isn't directly related to work to yourself.
I don't see what the ethical problem is.
GD - it simply isn't done in professional circles
Isn't done? Don't US companies sponsor university posts in the USA? They
certainly do here in the UK.
If someone sticks the MVP title in their sig I know the deal and can factor
it my opinion forming process, it's open. As a browser, lurker
Tears freeze as they fall.
A saint upon a high horse,
Is tall but smells bad.
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 December 2003 17:06
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5
OK, since it is Friday, I declare that further
I was going to ask what form this compensation took.
So it's on the level of the free pens the drugs companies give to doctors
rather than being so much greater than the salary your employer pays that
your loyalty lies utterly with Microsoft then?
*Phew*
Also, can I say again that
GD wrote:
Honorary titles and gifts are a conflict of interest and hence
not something that professional IT people should engage in, period.
I can perhaps understand why an employer might take this stance but why
would I, or anyone else on the list care?
They're telling us things not selling us
We also use TSM and it is great for our Exchange 5.5 system or anything else
with few but large files.
It's pretty easy to work with once you get used to it.
We're going to have to mess around with our SAN config to allow for a
restore domain for Exchange 2000 but that's our problem (as is the
The first number you think of should be plenty.
Or if not a little bit more.
-Original Message-
From: Alverson, Tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 December 2003 19:32
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Race between client rules and BES server
That is exactly what I was looking
www.nonags.com/nonags
Look in their list of categories under internet or email and I think there's
a whole section of anti-spam or ad-blockers in one of which I'm sure there's
a freeware util that does pretty much what you want.
I'll try and dig up more precise details when I get home.
We use Tivoli with the Exchange bolt-on.
I don't know if it can do brick level but I know we don't.
As it is we have several terabytes of Exchange backups - I dread to think
what we'd have to do if we wanted brick level too.
-Original Message-
From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL
Going on the information provided I'd say it was a glitch of some sort.
-Original Message-
From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 August 2003 13:35
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: pipe dream or possible
Does anyone have a clue how it is possible that our network is
Have you run a network trace? If so do you notice bursts of traffic? An
unusual number of broadcasts? A lot of traffic to / from one source or on
one port?
Are these outages occurring at regular intervals?
Have any patches been applied to any of the servers recently?
-Original
Roger,
Just saw this post and I'm curious - what are you referring to here?
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 30 July 2003 17:34
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Notes vs. Exchange
Lest you forget, speaking in relative terms, the most
Meh.
Whatever does the job.
-Original Message-
From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 31 July 2003 16:52
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Upgrade Questions
We had a customer request MSMail support late last year. We all ran for
cover.
Neil
The information contained
The most versatile word in the language carries connotations of penetration
and (potential) violation.
I'd use that.
And right off., of course.
-Original Message-
From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 28 July 2003 17:27
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: What is another
All the main providers (O2, Vodafone, T-Mobile, Orange) have excellent
coverage of urban areas, although you can find dead zones even in the middle
of London on any of them.
Rural coverage is more hit-and-miss but generally good with all suppliers
but if there is a particular area the exec needs
It must be longer than that - I've been away more than 3 years and Ed C. and
Missy and others were veterans then.
Cthulu Jones seems to have moved to another dimension though.
-Original Message-
From: Johnny Martinez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 July 2003 17:15
To: Exchange
You should be able to do this using the normal group functions in Kixtart -
I'd leave the Primary Group well alone.
-Original Message-
From: Greg Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 July 2003 17:15
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Primary Group Issue
There are win98 computers
I'm having a little trouble finding this so if you could post it I'd be
grateful.
(I've been out of this sort of loop for a while - what happened to SWYNK?)
-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 July 2003 16:27
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE:
Ta, Missy.
RIF'ed?
Anyway I get the idea. I remember the inernet.com takeover - they added
some branding and links to other of their sites. Didn't seem that bad at
the time. Clearly someone who didn't understand the value of what they had
made all sorts of wrong decisions.
What a
DNS would be my guess too.
The other week we replaced a network card in an Exchange server. During the
course of this it acquired a DHCP address. This DHCP address was retained
in the DNS server records even after the new network card was given the
server's original address. NT4 clients could
This doesn't seem to be right at all.
Event 1221 reported 107 meg but the actual amount recovered was about 2.5
gig.
-Original Message-
From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 July 2003 14:34
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency
To get a
Absolutely.
Setting up a website that excludes browsers other than Netscape and IE is
like running for President without securing the votes of all the waitresses.
-Original Message-
From: Dickenson, Steven [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 15 July 2003 16:45
To: Exchange Discussions
, i.e.,
copies from the same unmodifed database?
Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
Helping others with Exchange for over a twentieth of a century.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shotton Jolyon
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 7:45 AM
To: Exchange
We have recently deleted a large (700+) number of accounts and mailboxes.
It has been decided that defragmenting the store would be useful.
We have tested the procedure on a disaster recovery server. Twice.
The two restored stores were about a week apart in date and no drastic
changes were
And all those guns must be worth a bob or two.
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 20 June 2003 12:48
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Brick level backups - legal disclaimers
There's plenty to steal - just look at all the appliances and cars
Lawyers are like economists - any consensus they reach automatically becomes
the truth because all the people who matter act as though it's true.
-Original Message-
From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 June 2003 17:34
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Brick level backups
*Has* anyone tested email disclaimers in the courts in the UK, EU or US?
I'm not aware of any cases.
I do find it ironic that lawyers, who knowingly write in a way that most
people do not find clear, should be concerned that the disclaimer should be
written so as to be understood by any
As there are quite a few list members interested in this I think it would be
perfectly o.k. to keep it in the list threads.
Certainly any major caveats should be out here in the community.
-Original Message-
From: Haber, David J. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 18 June 2003 14:44
To:
Well you could probably format the link to let you track the clicks.
But as we know, noone reads these things anyway so it really shouldn't
matter - not that that will placate your legals, of course.
Perhaps some good might come of this - if It was in a language I couldn't
understand. becomes an
Syllables are not
Haiku's be all and end all.
Sounds are not meanings.
A Tuesday morning
The week stretches out ahead.
Daydream time away.
London summer rain
Pollen washed to the tarmac.
Air flows through nostrils.
Seasonal setting
Portray an objective scene
With depths of insight.
Person at a
53 matches
Mail list logo
