, December 20, 2003 7:16 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail - dist list in exchange via e-mail address from SQL
There's no easy way to do that, however, I think its potentially
achievable with a bit of coding. Personally, I'd look at using something
like Lyris Listmanager (which runs
There's no easy way to do that, however, I think its potentially achievable
with a bit of coding. Personally, I'd look at using something like Lyris
Listmanager (which runs this list) or any of a number of similar products to
accomplish something like this.
In Exchange (2000 or later) though, you
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Sean Faust [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 7:38 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
That is exactly what I did with my last organization before
.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 6:14 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
If you feel that way, a locked down Windows 2003 box running the SMTP
service is just as capable
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 9:45 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
I actually would be comfortable with that, except I have yet to find a way
to get Windows (any version) to run correctly from read
://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodt
echnol/exchange/exchange2000/proddocs/library/efessghs.asp
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Faust
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 10:21 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE
Well his last statement is crap imo but if all you are interested in is
shifting as many smtp messages as possible as quickly as possible then
Sendmail probably is a better choice than Exchange.
Much like a motorbike is a better choice for driving around motorbike
racing courses, compared to a
is
not properly configured.
I pick up my best practices from this list. Even if they are MVP's.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP]
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 1:38 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing
]
-Original Message-
From: Hague, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
We have a few of those around campus - mostly Mac heads though. 22
years old is all you had to say
Tell him Postfix is more secure... :P
Personally, I like to put another server at the edge for SMTP that is NOT
Exchange when I can...
As far as who's faster at processing... Who cares, can Sendmail do
calendaring, public folders, etc?
-Original Message-
From: Sean Faust
Greg, would you please help with this discussion on SendMailYour input will be
highly regardedThanks
Tell him Postfix is more secure... :P
Personally, I like to put another server at the edge for SMTP that is NOT
Exchange when I can...
As far as who's faster at processing...
Um, no, it can't. But that's a whole different story. Microsoft has some
hard num bers about the speed of the IIS SMTP component in comparison to
sendmail. I think they're in a whitepaper someone on the MS site.
That being said, I'm not a fan of exposing Exchange directly to the
Internet. If for
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:18 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
Tell him Postfix is more secure... :P
Personally, I like to put another server at the edge for SMTP that is NOT
Exchange when I can...
As far as who's
While I am not sure that the Greg in this post was directed at me or
whether this is some new form of abuse and sarcasm, it is pretty much
irrelevant as I do have some things to say on this issue.
The biggest problem that I have had with Exchange on the outside of the
SMTP mail chain is anti-spam
and Collaboration
Spherion
-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:30 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
While I am not sure that the Greg in this post was directed at me or
whether
users only.
Or maybe I was just luckily that the spammers different find this server?
Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:30 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
While I
-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:30 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
While I am not sure that the Greg in this post was directed at me or
whether this is some new
11:30 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
While I am not sure that the Greg in this post was directed at me or
whether this is some new form of abuse and sarcasm, it is pretty much
irrelevant as I do have some things to say on this issue
.
Sincerely,
Andrey Fyodorov, Exchange MVP
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion
-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:00 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
Yes, you
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:00 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
Yes, you were lucky. I have seen this exact scenario happen a couple
times
now. Fydora or whoever apparently did not understand this scenario but
it
is a fairly
: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
Well, I'll believe my own eyes. I've seen it happen. Don't come cryin'
to
me when you get nailed by the spammers.
Hey there always will be people that don't like POP3.
I perfectly understand how Exchange works by the way. I also perfectly
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov,
Andrey
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
Hey there always will be people that don't like POP3.
I perfectly
That's obviously absurd - Sendmail probably does process more mail than
Exchange on similar hardware but that's pretty much all sendmail does.
It doesn't provide the additional features that Exchange has out of the
box particularly if you are an Active Directory shop. Besides, what
difference does
We have a sendmail box out in front of our exchange org purely for spam
filtering. We are running PureMessage on Slackware 9.
-Original Message-
From: Hague, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:44 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:24 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
I thing Greg is saying that a POP3/SMTP user can't send mail OUTSIDE the
organization without relaying (with authentication) turned on.
Which is another good reason
]
-Original Message-
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:38 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
Same thing with Imail. In its tightest configuration, one must
authenticate in order to send mail from
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:00 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
Yes, you were lucky. I have seen this exact scenario happen a couple times
now. Fydora or whoever apparently did not understand this scenario
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:00 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
Yes, you were lucky. I have seen this exact scenario happen a couple times
now. Fydora or whoever apparently did not understand this scenario
Just call me Russki.
-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:00 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
Yes, you were lucky. I have seen this exact scenario happen a couple
times
now
Oh, let me tell you, he hates Bill, Microcrap comes out of his mouth far
too often. He's only 22 years old and a genius kid, good natured, knows
his stuff. He is also an MCSE only because he was forced into it. The
fact that someone develops a product to sell and then gets rich really
pisses
We do it because puremessage runs on sendmail.
-Original Message-
From: Sean Faust [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:15 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
Back to my original question, we use Surf Control
Hi russki
-Original Message-
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:15 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
Just call me Russki.
-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL
I wonder if any Linux people like the WTO :)
-Original Message-
From: Sean Faust [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 1:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
Oh, let me tell you, he hates Bill, Microcrap comes out
] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:00 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
Yes, you were lucky. I have seen this exact scenario happen a couple
times
now. Fydora or whoever apparently did not understand this scenario
Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
I thing Greg is saying that a POP3/SMTP user can't send mail OUTSIDE the
organization without relaying (with authentication) turned on.
Which is another good reason to NOT expose Exchange SMTP to the outside
world. It is now apparently
Faust [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 1:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
Oh, let me tell you, he hates Bill, Microcrap comes out of his mouth
far
too often. He's only 22 years old and a genius kid, good natured, knows
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 6:54 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
Um, no, it can't. But that's a whole different story. Microsoft has some
hard num bers about the speed of the IIS SMTP component
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:18 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
There will always be people too stupid not to use POP3 as well. What can
you say. POP3 is an unsecure and unsecurable protocol without adding
something else.
You can use
Friggin delete the SMTP address from the PF and then add it to the new
mailbox.
- Original Message -
From: Nathan Boyd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 1:22 PM
Subject: RE: Mail Loop with automatic replies to the internet
Make sure you have Integrated Authentication turned on on the Exadmin
folder under the default website in IIS.
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shields,
Anthony D.
Posted At: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:58 AM
Posted To: Exchange
The way some of the Digital Viruii of the New Frontier work, This will happen.
Lets say you and XYZ corp communicate via Email, and you are in his addressbook.
They are hit with one of the digital predators(Virus). for every email that virus
sends, it will pull two names out of the infected one's
-mail account here was not infected with a virus. All because of those
stupid messages.
-Original Message-
From: John Parker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 6:46 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: mail relay
The way some of the Digital Viruii of the New
It's [EMAIL PROTECTED] To learn more about this virus, click on this link:
http://www.sarc.com/avcenter/venc/data/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 5:16 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: mail
sobig.f
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:15:49 -0700
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: mail relay
I have a few users that are being used as a mail relay. They get returned
mail from sites and other
Some of these things are easier done with mailboxes than PFs.
Sincerely,
Andrey Fyodorov
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion
-Original Message-
From: Steve Molkentin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 2:07 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject:
Message-
From: Aldridge, Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 10:09 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail-enabled public folders
1) Already on
2) Under Microsoft Exchange System Objects: only folders
created prior to going native.
-Original
-
From: Aldridge, Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 3:41 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail-enabled public folders
How would you check this?
The new folders created under All Public Folders are
accessable through outlook but not in GAL
--
From: Roger Seielstad
Reply To: Exchange Discussions
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 5:50 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail-enabled public folders
You would ask me that, wouldn't you. I don't have an E2k box handy to look
at, though. I'm sure someone
I don't get an option to find public folders and advance features are enabled
-Original Message-
From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 16 July 2003 12:09
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail-enabled public folders
I believe that if you go to ADUC and do a find on your
When you look at the Public Folders in ADUC and you have the E-mail
address column displayed, what do you see?
Nate Couch
EDS Messaging
--
From: Gray
Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 8:04 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
The Folders are not appearing in ADUC
-Original Message-
From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 15 July 2003 14:59
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail-enabled public folders
When you look at the Public Folders in ADUC and you have the E-mail
address column displayed
: RE: Mail-enabled public folders
The Folders are not appearing in ADUC
-Original Message-
From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 15 July 2003 14:59
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail-enabled public folders
When you look at the Public Folders in ADUC and you
1) Already on
2) Under Microsoft Exchange System Objects: only folders created prior to going native.
-Original Message-
From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 15 July 2003 15:09
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail-enabled public folders
1) Make sure you have Advanced
, Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 10:09 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail-enabled public folders
1) Already on
2) Under Microsoft Exchange System Objects: only folders
created prior to going native.
-Original Message-
From: Couch, Nate
You who - used it and it was great. Lot of work up front however.
Thank you,
Erik L. Vesneski
Sr. Systems Specialist
ISO - Intel Systems
Ph#: 925-685-6161
www.pmigroup.com
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 June 2003 15:02
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Marshall users
You who - used it and it was great. Lot of work up front however.
Thank you,
Erik L. Vesneski
Sr. Systems Specialist
ISO - Intel Systems
Ph#: 925-685-6161
www.pmigroup.com
mailto
This is done on the SMTP virtual server. Out of the box, only authenticated
users are allowed to relay. You can allow an IP or group of IPs to relay on
the relay restrictions button I believe.
On 3/5/03 21:20, Jerry J. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In 5.5 I was able to lock the system down so that
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
Sorry, no 290s either.
-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
: 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
that's your answer then - see
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;273263
-Original Message-
From: Andy Haigh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 18 December 2002 07:11
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Enabled Public Folders on Exchange 2000
No still in Mixed
Thanks for that
-Original Message-
From: Mark Harford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 18 December 2002 9:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Enabled Public Folders on Exchange 2000
that's your answer then - see
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb
Using the Exchange system manager, highlight the PF you want to
Un-Enable, right click and select Mail Disable.
John M.
-Original Message-
From: Andy Haigh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 4:20 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Mail Enabled Public Folders
No still in Mixed mode
-Original Message-
From: Mark Harford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, 13 December 2002 12:32 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Enabled Public Folders on Exchange 2000
Are you in Exchange 2000 Native Mode yet?
-Original Message-
From
Are you in Exchange 2000 Native Mode yet?
-Original Message-
From: Andy Haigh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 12 December 2002 00:12
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Enabled Public Folders on Exchange 2000
Interesting I don't have that function available. These are Public
Andy,
In ESM navigate to the public folder, right click, All Tasks, Mail
Disable.
Voila,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Andy Haigh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 December 2002 09:20
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Mail Enabled Public Folders on Exchange 2000
Is there a way to
: Mike Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 11 December 2002 9:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Enabled Public Folders on Exchange 2000
Andy,
In ESM navigate to the public folder, right click, All Tasks, Mail
Disable.
Voila,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Andy
Message-
From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 09 December 2002 18:06
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Loop
Check out Q articles:
Q260782
Q309113
Q326018
Nate Couch
EDS Messaging
--
From: Santosh Naidoo
Reply To: [EMAIL
Are these 8216 events or some other Event ID? What connectros do you have
setup? What about trusts between the domains?
Nate Couch
EDS Messaging
-Original Message-
From: Santosh Naidoo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 9:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
Events 1205,1022 etc . SMTP connector on one and Fax gateway on the
other. Single Domain
Santosh
JJ Fast Food Distribution Limited
-Original Message-
From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 09 December 2002 17:06
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Loop
Are these 8216
Check out Q articles:
Q260782
Q309113
Q326018
Nate Couch
EDS Messaging
--
From: Santosh Naidoo
Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2002 11:29
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Mail Loop
Events 1205,1022 etc
-Original Message-
From: oC H I |Y| B O Co [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, 26 November 2002 6:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Mail Merge on Exchange
Hi guys,
Just wondering is there a similar program or add-on or code which somebody
has already written which when you
Subject: RE: Mail Merge on Exchange
-Original Message-
From: oC H I |Y| B O Co [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, 26 November 2002 6:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Mail Merge on Exchange
Hi guys,
Just wondering is there a similar program or add-on or code which somebody
Durkee, Peter wrote:
| Oh come on people, don't be deliberately thick. It's not that the word DVD is evil,
|it's just
that the topic holds a great deal
| of fascination among spammers. Not unlike, say, mortgages.
|
| -Peter
Not thick - funny. I get a kick out of these fun threads.
Speaking
| To: Exchange Discussions
| Subject: RE: Mail rejected
|
|
| Oh come on people, don't be deliberately thick. It's not that the word
| DVD is evil, it's just that the topic holds a great deal of fascination
| among spammers. Not unlike, say, mortgages
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
::[mailto:Dflorea;privateconsulting.com]
::Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 5:57 PM
::To: Exchange Discussions
::Subject: RE: Mail rejected
::
::
::What are some of these folks smoking?
::
::-Original Message-
::From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net]
::Sent
, November 07, 2002 6:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail rejected
Oh come on people, don't be deliberately thick. It's not that the word
DVD is evil, it's just that the topic holds a great deal of fascination
among spammers. Not unlike, say, mortgages.
-Peter
-Original Message
I don't think so.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of William
Lefkovics
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 20:55
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail rejected
Andy David Precht?
-Original Message-
From
I heard it had to be at least 28 degrees C, but yeah, I agree.
-Original Message-
From: East, Bill [mailto:eastb;PFFCU.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:17 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Relaying Originator
There are tiny evil gremlins in your server
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com]
Sent: 06 November 2002 17:20
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Relaying Originator
That's fine. Those are NDRs and probably shouldn't be blocked
That evil DVD word!!
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 2:47 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: FW: Mail rejected
Content filter rejection of the week!
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Services
What are some of these folks smoking?
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 2:47 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: FW: Mail rejected
Content filter rejection of the week!
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech
Thank god their protecting their company from that horrible word
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:bounce-exchange-97309;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 2:47 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: FW: Mail rejected
Content filter
To close to BVDS perhaps?
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 5:47 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: FW: Mail rejected
Content filter rejection of the week!
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp
, November 07, 2002 14:47
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail rejected
Thank god their protecting their company from that horrible word
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:bounce-exchange-97309;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 2:47
I wonder if BJ or SM are on the list
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:davida;vss.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 3:42 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail rejected
To close to BVDS perhaps?
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice
-97309;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Durkee, Peter
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 4:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail rejected
Oh come on people, don't be deliberately thick. It's not that the word
DVD is evil, it's just that the topic holds a great deal of fascination
among spammers
, 2002 3:42 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail rejected
To close to BVDS perhaps?
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 5:47 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: FW: Mail rejected
Content filter rejection of the week
lol
In that case, I can see why it was rejected!
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 8:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail rejected
Probably too close to David!
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech
Andy David Precht?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:bounce-exchange-104116;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Andy David
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 5:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail rejected
lol
In that case, I can see why it was rejected
FAQ
-Original Message-
From: Dave Morrow [mailto:David.Morrow;autodata.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:28 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Poor planning on your part does not necessitate an emergency on my part.
There are tiny evil gremlins in your server that are sending these messages.
But unlike in the movie Gremlins, (which was excellent if slightly
technically flawed) these ones will shrivel into dust if they are put in
water. Submerge your server in 24 degree (celcius) water for one full hour
*while
That's fine. Those are NDRs and probably shouldn't be blocked.
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA
-Original Message-
From: Dave Morrow
;inovis.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 11:43 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail blasts
Not to mention, I prefer to use other people's servers for spam propagation,
lest mine get black holed.
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems
]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 11:44 AM
Subject: RE: Mail blasts
Regarding the mail blasts, we presently use an outside source to send out
our mail blasts. The way this works, is that each time we upload our
content
as well as the list of addresses to whom
in order to send it as
a MIME type multipart/alternive ?
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 1:17 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Mail blasts
There are only two ways:
1. The mail goes out as MIME type multipart
.
--
be - MOS
A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain.
-- Lazarus Long, Time Enough For Love
-Original Message-
From: RBHATIA [mailto:RBHATIA;AIIM.ORG]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 1:44 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail blasts
I would
Send it from OL as HTML-formatted mail. The server takes care of the
encoding outbound (unless you're using OL in internet mode).
- Original Message -
From: RBHATIA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 12:43 PM
Subject: RE: Mail
Do I need a real beefy server to handle that kind of traffic ? I'm looking
at mail blasts to 20,000 recipients once a week.
-Original Message-
From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:greatcthulhu;aohell.com]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 7:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail
Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail blasts
Do I need a real beefy server to handle that kind of traffic ? I'm looking
at mail blasts to 20,000 recipients once a week.
-Original Message-
From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:greatcthulhu;aohell.com]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 7:23 PM
To: Exchange
1 - 100 of 255 matches
Mail list logo
