RE: Outlook 2003 and Exchange 5.5 Strange Behavior
Not sure, but my guestimate is that this is how it would work with any version of Exchange. -Original Message- From: Barry Kuske [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 5:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook 2003 and Exchange 5.5 Strange Behavior Yes it appears that the Exchange Cache Mode was what was causing the problem. I turned it off and all appears to be working well now. Is this just an issue between Outlook 2003 and Exchange 5.5? I would like to have this feature enabled because it really does make the end user experience pretty transparent when docking and undocking laptops. Thanks, Barry _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outlook 2003 and Exchange 5.5 Strange Behavior
Yes it appears that the Exchange Cache Mode was what was causing the problem. I turned it off and all appears to be working well now. Is this just an issue between Outlook 2003 and Exchange 5.5? I would like to have this feature enabled because it really does make the end user experience pretty transparent when docking and undocking laptops. Thanks, Barry _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outlook 2003 and Exchange 5.5 Strange Behavior
Could it be because you are using the local store cache mode with your Outlook 2003 profile? The cache does not know anything about the limit, but when it starts synchronizing things, it bumps into the online limit and then generates an NDR... Just a guess. Sincerely, Andrey Fyodorov, Exchange MVP Systems Engineer Messaging and Collaboration Spherion -Original Message- From: Barry Kuske [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 11:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Fw: Outlook 2003 and Exchange 5.5 Strange Behavior My boss currently has over 230 MB worth of Mail in his mailbox. He has asked me to bump it to 250 MB in the Private Info. Store Limits because he will be on vacation. I have done that but he is still getting bounced at 230 MB. This was working prior to the upgrade to Outlook 2003. Has anyone seen this? Also Outlook 2003 accepts the mail and tries to send it even if he is over his limit. In Outlook 2000 it would not let you send if you were over your limit. It would tell you that you were over. Outlook 2003 bounces the message on you. Anyone know how to change this behavior and make it act more like Outlook 2000. Thanks, Barry Kuske _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fw: Outlook 2003 and Exchange 5.5 Strange Behavior
My boss currently has over 230 MB worth of Mail in his mailbox. He has asked me to bump it to 250 MB in the Private Info. Store Limits because he will be on vacation. I have done that but he is still getting bounced at 230 MB. This was working prior to the upgrade to Outlook 2003. Has anyone seen this? Also Outlook 2003 accepts the mail and tries to send it even if he is over his limit. In Outlook 2000 it would not let you send if you were over your limit. It would tell you that you were over. Outlook 2003 bounces the message on you. Anyone know how to change this behavior and make it act more like Outlook 2000. Thanks, Barry Kuske _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Delivery Method
So what don't you understand? The "To:" address was spoofed and you were added to the "Bcc:" section, so your address won't show up in the headers. If you take a look at the NDRs in your Admin mailbox, you will see an NDR for the address indicated below. It's spam, pure and simple...delete it or block it or both. -Original Message- From: NPARRAY [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 7:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange Delivery Method Hello All, I received a mail item in my inbox this morning where the recipient is set to another user. This is an account that had been deleted about two years ago from the system. Since then the system had crashed and had to be restored. The mail itself is spam but my major concern about this one is the receipt of mail destined for another account. I've looked at the mail header and the recipient is indeed indicating another recipient. I've included the header below. Anoyone has any explanation for what happened here and does this indicate some weakness in my setup that I should be concerned about? TIA Navin Received: from lns-p19-8-82-65-145-246.adsl.proxad.net ([82.65.145.246]) by exchange.plipdeco.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id W4TT8ZAN; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:45:28 -0400 Received: from [2.220.72.61] by lns-p19-8-82-65-145-246.adsl.proxad.net id <5287070-99656>; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 16:34:33 +0200 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Earnest Wilkinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: "Earnest Wilkinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Next day shipping on your medication!beograd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 16:34:33 GMT X-Mailer: merle savage taxidermy2561 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_5CF0E2.73ED1A__" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal --_5CF0E2.73ED1A__ Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --_5CF0E2.73ED1A__-- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Delivery Method
The To: field showing in the headers is not necessarily the recipient in the envelope, i.e., the "RCPT TO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" command. Look carefully at spam you receive. Often you won't even show up in the To: field. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NPARRAY Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 7:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange Delivery Method Hello All, I received a mail item in my inbox this morning where the recipient is set to another user. This is an account that had been deleted about two years ago from the system. Since then the system had crashed and had to be restored. The mail itself is spam but my major concern about this one is the receipt of mail destined for another account. I've looked at the mail header and the recipient is indeed indicating another recipient. I've included the header below. Anoyone has any explanation for what happened here and does this indicate some weakness in my setup that I should be concerned about? TIA Navin Received: from lns-p19-8-82-65-145-246.adsl.proxad.net ([82.65.145.246]) by exchange.plipdeco.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id W4TT8ZAN; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:45:28 -0400 Received: from [2.220.72.61] by lns-p19-8-82-65-145-246.adsl.proxad.net id <5287070-99656>; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 16:34:33 +0200 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Earnest Wilkinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: "Earnest Wilkinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Next day shipping on your medication!beograd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 16:34:33 GMT X-Mailer: merle savage taxidermy2561 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_5CF0E2.73ED1A__" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal --_5CF0E2.73ED1A__ Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --_5CF0E2.73ED1A__-- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strange Delivery Method
Hello All, I received a mail item in my inbox this morning where the recipient is set to another user. This is an account that had been deleted about two years ago from the system. Since then the system had crashed and had to be restored. The mail itself is spam but my major concern about this one is the receipt of mail destined for another account. I've looked at the mail header and the recipient is indeed indicating another recipient. I've included the header below. Anoyone has any explanation for what happened here and does this indicate some weakness in my setup that I should be concerned about? TIA Navin Received: from lns-p19-8-82-65-145-246.adsl.proxad.net ([82.65.145.246]) by exchange.plipdeco.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id W4TT8ZAN; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:45:28 -0400 Received: from [2.220.72.61] by lns-p19-8-82-65-145-246.adsl.proxad.net id <5287070-99656>; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 16:34:33 +0200 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Earnest Wilkinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: "Earnest Wilkinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Next day shipping on your medication!beograd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 16:34:33 GMT X-Mailer: merle savage taxidermy2561 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_5CF0E2.73ED1A__" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal --_5CF0E2.73ED1A__ Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --_5CF0E2.73ED1A__-- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: strange headers
Will read them and try and understand them! It wasn't from a spammer tho but from someone who wants us to sponsor them (we sell skateboards). -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 06 November 2003 17:54 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: strange headers Read and understand RFC 821 and 822, and their successors 2821 and 2822, and you'll understand a lot about how spammers ply their trade. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Hackney Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 5:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: strange headers Hi, our organisation received an email yesterday and I don't quite know why it appeared the way it did. Basically, someone sent an email from a Hotmail address yet the 'from' field did not display the hotmail address, but an address that looked as tho it was from our network. Now I know that it is possible to spoof addresses and so on but I didn't think this was possible thru hotmail tho having looked on their site, it appears you can do POP and the line below 'mail pickup service seems to indicate that. I don't use hotmail so I don't know whether POP could have been used. Would someone be able to look at the headers below and tell me what happened? I believe that someone did use a POP thru hotmail and spoofed the address but would like confirmation or correction I have also included the original mail but deleted some parts. (incidentally, what is the best practice for posting headers? should I block our sensitive stuff or is it easy enough to get hold of that it is not worth the bother?) Much obliged Rob Microsoft Mail Internet Headers Version 2.0 Received: from gateway.mydomain.xxx.net ([xxx.xxx.xx.x]) by servername.mydomain.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Sat, 1 Nov 2003 16:55:11 + Received: from server.isp.net ([xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]) by gateway.mydomain.xxx.net (x.xx.x/x.xx.x) with ESMTP id hA1Gt79Q098836 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 16:55:07 GMT x-previous-hop: 64.4.18.193 Received: from hotmail.com (law12-oe58.law12.hotmail.com [64.4.18.193]) by server.isp.net (x.xx.x/x.xx.x) with ESMTP id hA1Gt84r029294 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 16:55:09 GMT Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 08:55:06 -0800 Received: from xx.xxx.xx.xxx by law12-oe58.law12.hotmail.com with DAV; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 16:55:06 + X-Originating-IP: [xx.xxx.xx.xxx] X-Originating-Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "The one" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: getting sponsored Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 16:54:57 - MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3A098.E1BED900" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600. X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600. Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Nov 2003 16:55:06.0977 (UTC) FILETIME=[E7226510:01C3A098] X-Virus-Checked: 61885 X-Skip-Virus-Check: yes X-Sender-IP: 212.50.178.147 X-INT-DeliveryDone: hA1Gt79Q098836 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3A098.E1BED900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3A098.E1BED900 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3A098.E1BED900-- -Original Message- From: The one [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 November 2003 16:55 To: Mailbox Subject: send back on [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: strange headers
Read and understand RFC 821 and 822, and their successors 2821 and 2822, and you'll understand a lot about how spammers ply their trade. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Hackney Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 5:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: strange headers Hi, our organisation received an email yesterday and I don't quite know why it appeared the way it did. Basically, someone sent an email from a Hotmail address yet the 'from' field did not display the hotmail address, but an address that looked as tho it was from our network. Now I know that it is possible to spoof addresses and so on but I didn't think this was possible thru hotmail tho having looked on their site, it appears you can do POP and the line below 'mail pickup service seems to indicate that. I don't use hotmail so I don't know whether POP could have been used. Would someone be able to look at the headers below and tell me what happened? I believe that someone did use a POP thru hotmail and spoofed the address but would like confirmation or correction I have also included the original mail but deleted some parts. (incidentally, what is the best practice for posting headers? should I block our sensitive stuff or is it easy enough to get hold of that it is not worth the bother?) Much obliged Rob Microsoft Mail Internet Headers Version 2.0 Received: from gateway.mydomain.xxx.net ([xxx.xxx.xx.x]) by servername.mydomain.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Sat, 1 Nov 2003 16:55:11 + Received: from server.isp.net ([xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]) by gateway.mydomain.xxx.net (x.xx.x/x.xx.x) with ESMTP id hA1Gt79Q098836 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 16:55:07 GMT x-previous-hop: 64.4.18.193 Received: from hotmail.com (law12-oe58.law12.hotmail.com [64.4.18.193]) by server.isp.net (x.xx.x/x.xx.x) with ESMTP id hA1Gt84r029294 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 16:55:09 GMT Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 08:55:06 -0800 Received: from xx.xxx.xx.xxx by law12-oe58.law12.hotmail.com with DAV; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 16:55:06 + X-Originating-IP: [xx.xxx.xx.xxx] X-Originating-Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "The one" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: getting sponsored Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 16:54:57 - MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3A098.E1BED900" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600. X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600. Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Nov 2003 16:55:06.0977 (UTC) FILETIME=[E7226510:01C3A098] X-Virus-Checked: 61885 X-Skip-Virus-Check: yes X-Sender-IP: 212.50.178.147 X-INT-DeliveryDone: hA1Gt79Q098836 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3A098.E1BED900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3A098.E1BED900 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3A098.E1BED900-- -Original Message- From: The one [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 November 2003 16:55 To: Mailbox Subject: send back on [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: strange headers
I'm sure I read somewhere about some explot/vuln that involved DAV (which I noticed in the headers) - maybe that has something to do with it? regards, Paul -- Paul Hutchings Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd. Tel: 44 (0)24 7635 5378, Fax: 44 (0)24 7635 8378 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original Message- > From: Rob Hackney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 06 November 2003 13:15 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: strange headers > > > > > Hi, our organisation received an email yesterday and I don't > quite know > why it appeared the way it did. > Basically, someone sent an email from a Hotmail address yet the 'from' > field did not display the hotmail address, but an address > that looked as > tho it was from our network. Now I know that it is possible to spoof > addresses and so on but I didn't think this was possible thru hotmail > tho having looked on their site, it appears you can do POP > and the line > below 'mail pickup service seems to indicate that. I don't > use hotmail > so I don't know whether POP could have been used. > Would someone be able to look at the headers below and tell me what > happened? I believe that someone did use a POP thru hotmail and > spoofed the address but would like confirmation or correction > I have also included the original mail but deleted some parts. > (incidentally, what is the best practice for posting headers? > should I > block our sensitive stuff or is it easy enough to get hold of > that it is > not worth the bother?) > Much obliged > Rob > > Microsoft Mail Internet Headers Version 2.0 > Received: from gateway.mydomain.xxx.net ([xxx.xxx.xx.x]) by > servername.mydomain.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); > Sat, 1 Nov 2003 16:55:11 + > Received: from server.isp.net ([xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]) > by gateway.mydomain.xxx.net (x.xx.x/x.xx.x) with ESMTP id > hA1Gt79Q098836 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 16:55:07 GMT > x-previous-hop: 64.4.18.193 > Received: from hotmail.com (law12-oe58.law12.hotmail.com > [64.4.18.193]) > by server.isp.net (x.xx.x/x.xx.x) with ESMTP id hA1Gt84r029294 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 16:55:09 GMT > Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft > SMTPSVC; > Sat, 1 Nov 2003 08:55:06 -0800 > Received: from xx.xxx.xx.xxx by law12-oe58.law12.hotmail.com with DAV; > Sat, 01 Nov 2003 16:55:06 + > X-Originating-IP: [xx.xxx.xx.xxx] > X-Originating-Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: "The one" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: getting sponsored > Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 16:54:57 - > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3A098.E1BED900" > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600. > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600. > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Nov 2003 16:55:06.0977 (UTC) > FILETIME=[E7226510:01C3A098] > X-Virus-Checked: 61885 > X-Skip-Virus-Check: yes > X-Sender-IP: 212.50.178.147 > X-INT-DeliveryDone: hA1Gt79Q098836 > Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3A098.E1BED900 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > --=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3A098.E1BED900 > Content-Type: text/html; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > --=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3A098.E1BED900-- > > -Original Message- > From: The one [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 01 November 2003 16:55 > To: Mailbox > Subject: > > > send back on [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of > the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be > deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and > the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. > Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the > author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group > Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not > copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. > > intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
strange headers
Hi, our organisation received an email yesterday and I don't quite know why it appeared the way it did. Basically, someone sent an email from a Hotmail address yet the 'from' field did not display the hotmail address, but an address that looked as tho it was from our network. Now I know that it is possible to spoof addresses and so on but I didn't think this was possible thru hotmail tho having looked on their site, it appears you can do POP and the line below 'mail pickup service seems to indicate that. I don't use hotmail so I don't know whether POP could have been used. Would someone be able to look at the headers below and tell me what happened? I believe that someone did use a POP thru hotmail and spoofed the address but would like confirmation or correction I have also included the original mail but deleted some parts. (incidentally, what is the best practice for posting headers? should I block our sensitive stuff or is it easy enough to get hold of that it is not worth the bother?) Much obliged Rob Microsoft Mail Internet Headers Version 2.0 Received: from gateway.mydomain.xxx.net ([xxx.xxx.xx.x]) by servername.mydomain.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Sat, 1 Nov 2003 16:55:11 + Received: from server.isp.net ([xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]) by gateway.mydomain.xxx.net (x.xx.x/x.xx.x) with ESMTP id hA1Gt79Q098836 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 16:55:07 GMT x-previous-hop: 64.4.18.193 Received: from hotmail.com (law12-oe58.law12.hotmail.com [64.4.18.193]) by server.isp.net (x.xx.x/x.xx.x) with ESMTP id hA1Gt84r029294 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 16:55:09 GMT Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 08:55:06 -0800 Received: from xx.xxx.xx.xxx by law12-oe58.law12.hotmail.com with DAV; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 16:55:06 + X-Originating-IP: [xx.xxx.xx.xxx] X-Originating-Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "The one" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: getting sponsored Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 16:54:57 - MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3A098.E1BED900" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600. X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600. Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Nov 2003 16:55:06.0977 (UTC) FILETIME=[E7226510:01C3A098] X-Virus-Checked: 61885 X-Skip-Virus-Check: yes X-Sender-IP: 212.50.178.147 X-INT-DeliveryDone: hA1Gt79Q098836 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3A098.E1BED900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3A098.E1BED900 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3A098.E1BED900-- -Original Message- From: The one [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 November 2003 16:55 To: Mailbox Subject: send back on [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Calendar Behaviour
Thanks Jeff - that worked a treat. (Why is it always the simple things that get overlooked?) Nick -Original Message- From: Jeff Beckham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 October 2003 10:23 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Calendar Behaviour Check and see if the DL is listed as a delegate. Tools>Options>delegates. Just remove it and you should be OK. Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Field Posted At: Monday, October 13, 2003 2:51 AM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Strange Calendar Behaviour Subject: Strange Calendar Behaviour Hi All, Hopefully, someone has seen this before and there is a simple fix I'm using EX5.5 One of my users decided to give a Distribution List 'Editor' permissions to his calendar. When the next person sent him a meeting invite, it went to both him and the DL. He then removed the permissions, but the DL still gets sent his meeting invites. This was several days ago, and it is still occurring. Can anyone give me a tip or two on how to stop this? Thanks Nick The information in this e-mail and any attachment(s) is confidential and may be legally privileged. This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the addressee, dissemination, copying or other use of this e-mail or any of its content is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender immediately and destroy the e-mail and any copies. All liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent permitted by law. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. No contract may be construed by this e-mail. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Calendar Behaviour
Check and see if the DL is listed as a delegate. Tools>Options>delegates. Just remove it and you should be OK. Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Field Posted At: Monday, October 13, 2003 2:51 AM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Strange Calendar Behaviour Subject: Strange Calendar Behaviour Hi All, Hopefully, someone has seen this before and there is a simple fix I'm using EX5.5 One of my users decided to give a Distribution List 'Editor' permissions to his calendar. When the next person sent him a meeting invite, it went to both him and the DL. He then removed the permissions, but the DL still gets sent his meeting invites. This was several days ago, and it is still occurring. Can anyone give me a tip or two on how to stop this? Thanks Nick The information in this e-mail and any attachment(s) is confidential and may be legally privileged. This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the addressee, dissemination, copying or other use of this e-mail or any of its content is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender immediately and destroy the e-mail and any copies. All liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent permitted by law. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. No contract may be construed by this e-mail. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strange Calendar Behaviour
Hi All, Hopefully, someone has seen this before and there is a simple fix I'm using EX5.5 One of my users decided to give a Distribution List 'Editor' permissions to his calendar. When the next person sent him a meeting invite, it went to both him and the DL. He then removed the permissions, but the DL still gets sent his meeting invites. This was several days ago, and it is still occurring. Can anyone give me a tip or two on how to stop this? Thanks Nick The information in this e-mail and any attachment(s) is confidential and may be legally privileged. This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the addressee, dissemination, copying or other use of this e-mail or any of its content is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender immediately and destroy the e-mail and any copies. All liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent permitted by law. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. No contract may be construed by this e-mail. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: strange problems
Nothing unusual. Until today, it was set up to automatically discover DCs and the DCs from local site were listed as discovered. After today's OWA problem (caused by a DC in the local site going down) we manually listed the DCs that are still up. Sincerely, Andrey Fyodorov Systems Engineer Messaging and Collaboration Spherion -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 4:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: strange problems What does DSAccess (Directory Access tab in the Server properties in Exchange System Manager) say? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov, Andrey Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 12:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: strange problems Hi all. We are having some interesting problems with one of our Exchange 2000 SP3 cluster. I wonder is anyone here has seen something like this. It seems that whenever a DC *in another AD site* goes offline, this particular Exchange server starts acting up: users can't connect to the server with Outlook, ESM reports that the stores are dismounted, refreshing the storage group view produces an error that Information Store service may not be running, intermittently the stores seem to mount again, then again appear dismounted. Why would Exchange start acting up like this if one of many DCs goes offline, especially if this DC is in another AD site? We end up failing over the cluster to another node and the server is happy again, until next time. Also another (but I believe related) issue - today a DC in the same AD site went offline and caused all users whose mailboxes are homed on this cluster to receive "Error 500 Internal Server Error" in OWA. We had to change the server properties under the DS Access tab to manually list "good" DCs instead of letting Exchange discover DCs automatically, then failed over the cluster - OWA started working fine again. The other two Exchange 2000 SP3 clusters did not get affected by this at all. To the best of my knowledge all these clusters are built the same. They sit in the same rack. They are on the same VLAN. They use the same hardware. They are up to the same SP and patch levels. Any ideas? Thanks in advance! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: strange problems
I had better luck in NT4 and multihomed NIC's than in Win2K. I have the unfortunate need to make my Exchange box a DC which is also multihiomed (The the main DC but still). The hoops you need to go through in Win2K is pretty serious. A lot of 'Q' articles on multihoming DC's (with DNS) and NetBIOS etc... -Original Message- From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 14:28 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: strange problems Not sure about the DC in the other site. It is currently down, can't get to it to check. The DC in the same site that went down today was not a GC, however it had been autodiscovered by Exchange as a Configuration DC. Also I just straightened out another issue - this server has multiple NICs and all of them had NetBIOS bindings (MS Client and File and Print). I removed NetBIOS bindings from the NICs that don't need it (cluster heartbeat NICs) as it was causing Browser to get disoriented. Sincerely, Andrey Fyodorov Systems Engineer Messaging and Collaboration Spherion -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 4:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: strange problems Does the DC that goes down also a Global? From: "Fyodorov, Andrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: strange problems Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:37:53 -0400 Hi all. We are having some interesting problems with one of our Exchange 2000 SP3 cluster. I wonder is anyone here has seen something like this. It seems that whenever a DC *in another AD site* goes offline, this particular Exchange server starts acting up: users can't connect to the server with Outlook, ESM reports that the stores are dismounted, refreshing the storage group view produces an error that Information Store service may not be running, intermittently the stores seem to mount again, then again appear dismounted. Why would Exchange start acting up like this if one of many DCs goes offline, especially if this DC is in another AD site? We end up failing over the cluster to another node and the server is happy again, until next time. Also another (but I believe related) issue - today a DC in the same AD site went offline and caused all users whose mailboxes are homed on this cluster to receive "Error 500 Internal Server Error" in OWA. We had to change the server properties under the DS Access tab to manually list "good" DCs instead of letting Exchange discover DCs automatically, then failed over the cluster - OWA started working fine again. The other two Exchange 2000 SP3 clusters did not get affected by this at all. To the best of my knowledge all these clusters are built the same. They sit in the same rack. They are on the same VLAN. They use the same hardware. They are up to the same SP and patch levels. Any ideas? Thanks in advance! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Instant message in style with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: strange problems
Not sure about the DC in the other site. It is currently down, can't get to it to check. The DC in the same site that went down today was not a GC, however it had been autodiscovered by Exchange as a Configuration DC. Also I just straightened out another issue - this server has multiple NICs and all of them had NetBIOS bindings (MS Client and File and Print). I removed NetBIOS bindings from the NICs that don't need it (cluster heartbeat NICs) as it was causing Browser to get disoriented. Sincerely, Andrey Fyodorov Systems Engineer Messaging and Collaboration Spherion -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 4:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: strange problems Does the DC that goes down also a Global? From: "Fyodorov, Andrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: strange problems Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:37:53 -0400 Hi all. We are having some interesting problems with one of our Exchange 2000 SP3 cluster. I wonder is anyone here has seen something like this. It seems that whenever a DC *in another AD site* goes offline, this particular Exchange server starts acting up: users can't connect to the server with Outlook, ESM reports that the stores are dismounted, refreshing the storage group view produces an error that Information Store service may not be running, intermittently the stores seem to mount again, then again appear dismounted. Why would Exchange start acting up like this if one of many DCs goes offline, especially if this DC is in another AD site? We end up failing over the cluster to another node and the server is happy again, until next time. Also another (but I believe related) issue - today a DC in the same AD site went offline and caused all users whose mailboxes are homed on this cluster to receive "Error 500 Internal Server Error" in OWA. We had to change the server properties under the DS Access tab to manually list "good" DCs instead of letting Exchange discover DCs automatically, then failed over the cluster - OWA started working fine again. The other two Exchange 2000 SP3 clusters did not get affected by this at all. To the best of my knowledge all these clusters are built the same. They sit in the same rack. They are on the same VLAN. They use the same hardware. They are up to the same SP and patch levels. Any ideas? Thanks in advance! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Instant message in style with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: strange problems
What does DSAccess (Directory Access tab in the Server properties in Exchange System Manager) say? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov, Andrey Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 12:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: strange problems Hi all. We are having some interesting problems with one of our Exchange 2000 SP3 cluster. I wonder is anyone here has seen something like this. It seems that whenever a DC *in another AD site* goes offline, this particular Exchange server starts acting up: users can't connect to the server with Outlook, ESM reports that the stores are dismounted, refreshing the storage group view produces an error that Information Store service may not be running, intermittently the stores seem to mount again, then again appear dismounted. Why would Exchange start acting up like this if one of many DCs goes offline, especially if this DC is in another AD site? We end up failing over the cluster to another node and the server is happy again, until next time. Also another (but I believe related) issue - today a DC in the same AD site went offline and caused all users whose mailboxes are homed on this cluster to receive "Error 500 Internal Server Error" in OWA. We had to change the server properties under the DS Access tab to manually list "good" DCs instead of letting Exchange discover DCs automatically, then failed over the cluster - OWA started working fine again. The other two Exchange 2000 SP3 clusters did not get affected by this at all. To the best of my knowledge all these clusters are built the same. They sit in the same rack. They are on the same VLAN. They use the same hardware. They are up to the same SP and patch levels. Any ideas? Thanks in advance! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: strange problems
Does the DC that goes down also a Global? From: "Fyodorov, Andrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: strange problems Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:37:53 -0400 Hi all. We are having some interesting problems with one of our Exchange 2000 SP3 cluster. I wonder is anyone here has seen something like this. It seems that whenever a DC *in another AD site* goes offline, this particular Exchange server starts acting up: users can't connect to the server with Outlook, ESM reports that the stores are dismounted, refreshing the storage group view produces an error that Information Store service may not be running, intermittently the stores seem to mount again, then again appear dismounted. Why would Exchange start acting up like this if one of many DCs goes offline, especially if this DC is in another AD site? We end up failing over the cluster to another node and the server is happy again, until next time. Also another (but I believe related) issue - today a DC in the same AD site went offline and caused all users whose mailboxes are homed on this cluster to receive "Error 500 Internal Server Error" in OWA. We had to change the server properties under the DS Access tab to manually list "good" DCs instead of letting Exchange discover DCs automatically, then failed over the cluster - OWA started working fine again. The other two Exchange 2000 SP3 clusters did not get affected by this at all. To the best of my knowledge all these clusters are built the same. They sit in the same rack. They are on the same VLAN. They use the same hardware. They are up to the same SP and patch levels. Any ideas? Thanks in advance! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Instant message in style with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
strange problems
Hi all. We are having some interesting problems with one of our Exchange 2000 SP3 cluster. I wonder is anyone here has seen something like this. It seems that whenever a DC *in another AD site* goes offline, this particular Exchange server starts acting up: users can't connect to the server with Outlook, ESM reports that the stores are dismounted, refreshing the storage group view produces an error that Information Store service may not be running, intermittently the stores seem to mount again, then again appear dismounted. Why would Exchange start acting up like this if one of many DCs goes offline, especially if this DC is in another AD site? We end up failing over the cluster to another node and the server is happy again, until next time. Also another (but I believe related) issue - today a DC in the same AD site went offline and caused all users whose mailboxes are homed on this cluster to receive "Error 500 Internal Server Error" in OWA. We had to change the server properties under the DS Access tab to manually list "good" DCs instead of letting Exchange discover DCs automatically, then failed over the cluster - OWA started working fine again. The other two Exchange 2000 SP3 clusters did not get affected by this at all. To the best of my knowledge all these clusters are built the same. They sit in the same rack. They are on the same VLAN. They use the same hardware. They are up to the same SP and patch levels. Any ideas? Thanks in advance! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG
Thanks Steve. We are building the new servers tomorrow and applying the Sp's + rollups. I'll make sure that hotfix is in there. G. - Original Message - From: "Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 1:35 AM Subject: Re: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG > Glenn, > > I have seen this exact issue as well and the SIS hotfix does resolve it > (after applying it and then running ISINTEG on each DB). When you run > ISINTEG without the fix it will temporarily resolve the discrepancy > between the "real" mailbox size and what is reported (thus the sudden > mailbox size increases), but it will come back until the SIS hf is > applied. > > > > Jason, > > > > I did find the article in the end, IIRC you transposed some of the numbers > > in the article ID. > > > > IIRC the article is more in reference to a bug in the SIS component, where a > > message received by multiple users on the same store is modified by one or > > more users and the size / references are not updated correctly (or something > > like that). It certainly could be one of the problems we are having, > > however the level of corruption (in the order of several hundred thousand > > messages in one store alone) points to something more fundamental. > > > > Glenn > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Kelley, Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 5:06 AM > > Subject: RE: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG > > > > > > It wasn't a premier article. I had pulled up the article when I sent > > the e-mail but now I can't find it either. It's not even on the list of > > bugs that the rollup hotfix addresses. > > > > Basically the mailbox size in ESM is different than what outlook tells > > the user and when you run an isinteg the mailbox size in ESM is larger, > > more accurate to what outlook says it is. > > > > Sorry I didn't send the full link initially > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Corbett > > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 2:51 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG > > > > > > Is that a premier only article ? cant seem to find it on technet. > > > > G. > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Kelley, Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 6:34 PM > > Subject: RE: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG > > > > > > Check out Q article Q818830 > > > > We applied the single instance store hotfix before it was part of the > > Sept hotfix rollup. When we ran isinteg we had many mailboxes jump in > > size. > > > > Jason > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Corbett > > Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 9:54 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG > > > > > > All, > > > > Recently we have been having some strange behaviours with user > > mailboxes, such as users being denied access to folders in their > > mailboxes, rules disappearing etc. After running ISINTEG on all stores > > (approx 20), a number of errors were found and fixed...all good so far. > > After remounting the stores everything looked fineuntil the next > > morning when people came back to work. > > > > A number of mailboxes had suddenly a LOT more mail in their inboxes and > > deleted items folders, some users over 200mb worth, which threw a lot of > > the organisation over the store limits and stopped them sending and > > receiving mail. We temporarily increased the store limits to cope with > > the problem, however we are still at a loss to explain what happened. > > > > After speaking with PSS, they are also at a bit of a loss as well. I've > > also checked Technet and other online resources, but no mention is made > > of this sort of problem. > > > > - Some users had no effect on their mailboxes > > - Some users had lots of mail return to either their deleted items or > > inbox (we are surmising that the way the message was originally deleted
Re: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG
Glenn, I have seen this exact issue as well and the SIS hotfix does resolve it (after applying it and then running ISINTEG on each DB). When you run ISINTEG without the fix it will temporarily resolve the discrepancy between the "real" mailbox size and what is reported (thus the sudden mailbox size increases), but it will come back until the SIS hf is applied. > Jason, > > I did find the article in the end, IIRC you transposed some of the numbers > in the article ID. > > IIRC the article is more in reference to a bug in the SIS component, where a > message received by multiple users on the same store is modified by one or > more users and the size / references are not updated correctly (or something > like that). It certainly could be one of the problems we are having, > however the level of corruption (in the order of several hundred thousand > messages in one store alone) points to something more fundamental. > > Glenn > > - Original Message - > From: "Kelley, Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 5:06 AM > Subject: RE: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG > > > It wasn't a premier article. I had pulled up the article when I sent > the e-mail but now I can't find it either. It's not even on the list of > bugs that the rollup hotfix addresses. > > Basically the mailbox size in ESM is different than what outlook tells > the user and when you run an isinteg the mailbox size in ESM is larger, > more accurate to what outlook says it is. > > Sorry I didn't send the full link initially > > Jason > > > > -Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Corbett > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 2:51 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG > > > Is that a premier only article ? cant seem to find it on technet. > > G. > > - Original Message - > From: "Kelley, Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 6:34 PM > Subject: RE: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG > > > Check out Q article Q818830 > > We applied the single instance store hotfix before it was part of the > Sept hotfix rollup. When we ran isinteg we had many mailboxes jump in > size. > > Jason > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Corbett > Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 9:54 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG > > > All, > > Recently we have been having some strange behaviours with user > mailboxes, such as users being denied access to folders in their > mailboxes, rules disappearing etc. After running ISINTEG on all stores > (approx 20), a number of errors were found and fixed...all good so far. > After remounting the stores everything looked fineuntil the next > morning when people came back to work. > > A number of mailboxes had suddenly a LOT more mail in their inboxes and > deleted items folders, some users over 200mb worth, which threw a lot of > the organisation over the store limits and stopped them sending and > receiving mail. We temporarily increased the store limits to cope with > the problem, however we are still at a loss to explain what happened. > > After speaking with PSS, they are also at a bit of a loss as well. I've > also checked Technet and other online resources, but no mention is made > of this sort of problem. > > - Some users had no effect on their mailboxes > - Some users had lots of mail return to either their deleted items or > inbox (we are surmising that the way the message was originally deleted > has determined where it came back to - shift-delete - back to inbox, > deleted via deleted items - back to delete items). > - The restored messages don't seem to be from the previous days. In all > of the cases we have confirmed, messages deleted the couple of days > previous didn't come back, but messages deleted prior to that did come > back. > > Has anyone seen this behaviour before and could possibly explain what > happened ? As with all of these things, the people most affected were > senior management, and they are screaming for a satisfactory response. > > Config: > Windows 2000 SP2 with hotfixes > Exchange 2000 SP2 - 6 Servers, 2 badly affected, 1 with minor effects, 3 > not affected at all Trend Scanmail installed on all servers 1 Storage > group on each server, between 2 and 4 d
RE: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG
BAS=Broke A$$ Sh!t I'd love to come up with more ideas than you or PSS have... Have you all considered an Offline Defrag? It's a LONG shot, but could be something to consider... -Original Message- From: Glenn Corbett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 7:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG Don. BAS ? Anyhoo... Disabling the AV software is certainly something that we have considered, however with the current raft of virii going around, its fairly low on the list, and other servers running exactly the same software and hardware config aren't affected. I would need some pretty serious convincing to disable the AV system on the server for an extended period. MS didnt mention / find anything that pointed at possible AV issues, and disabling it wasnt even mentioned as an option by MS. Yes, we have considered Sp3 for Exchange, however with the "feature" in SP3 of changes to the public folder rights (yes, I know it was fixed in a hotfix), we had put it on hold until the rollup came out this month before we applied it. I also inherited the Exchange servers around March this year in their current state, so have been reluctant to do major patchwork on them as the underlying build is not documented. And no, we aren't vulnerable to blaster/welchia etc, as we have the hotfix applied (and applied it several weeks ago), as the patch can be applied to SP2, 3 or 4 based 2k systems. We did get a spot of welchia on the network, but the exchange servers were unaffected. The main issue we have to deal with atm is that upping the storage limits for the organisation to cope with the massive increase in "undeleted" email has overcommitted our disk space allocations in Exchange by a factor of 8-10 times. We are currently working on a "clean" method of reducing the store limits without impacting the user population, and still allow us to reduce this overcommitment. We have a KVS project in the works to resolve this issue in the longer term. We had a lengthy meeting with MS today about the issue, and their recommendations are basically: - Don't touch the current servers that have the corruption (even though we have cleaned them up). This includes performing any patching or upgrades. The reasoning behind this is that running an Exchange SP on the server may force a db upgrade and "pooch" the databases completely. - Install new kit running the latest of everything (Win2k SP's and hotfixes, E2k Sp's and hotfixes) - Do a managed migration of mailboxes from the existing kit to the new kit, running ISINTEG at regular intervals to see if a) the corruption is returning, and b) if it is, to try and determine if its a hardware problem, or Move Mailbox is bringing the corruption along with it. We were planning on doing an Exchange consolidation anyway (6 servers to 3 + gateways), this has simply bought forward our plans. At least the new servers are cool...Dual 2.8ghz Xeon, 2gb RAM, 12 x 72gb drives, and Dual GBit Ethernet *grin*lucky I'm not paying for them. G. - Original Message - From: "Ely, Don" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 9:42 AM Subject: RE: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG > Damn Glenn! That is some serious BAS(tm) you got there! > > Have you tried disabling the AV software for a start? Have you > considered > SP3 for Exchange? Are you aware you are vulnerable to MSBlaster > running W2k > SP2? > > -Original Message- > From: Glenn Corbett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 12:54 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG > > All, > > Recently we have been having some strange behaviours with user > mailboxes, such as users being denied access to folders in their > mailboxes, rules disappearing etc. After running ISINTEG on all > stores (approx 20), a number > of errors were found and fixed...all good so far. After remounting > the stores everything looked fineuntil the next morning when > people came back to work. > > A number of mailboxes had suddenly a LOT more mail in their inboxes > and deleted items folders, some users over 200mb worth, which threw a > lot of the > organisation over the store limits and stopped them sending and > receiving mail. We temporarily increased the store limits to cope > with the problem, however we are still at a loss to explain what happened. > > After speaking with PSS, they are also at a bit of a loss as well. > I've also > checked Technet and other online resources, but no mention is made of > this sort of problem. > > - Some users had no effect on their mailboxes > - Some users had lots of
Re: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG
Jason, I did find the article in the end, IIRC you transposed some of the numbers in the article ID. IIRC the article is more in reference to a bug in the SIS component, where a message received by multiple users on the same store is modified by one or more users and the size / references are not updated correctly (or something like that). It certainly could be one of the problems we are having, however the level of corruption (in the order of several hundred thousand messages in one store alone) points to something more fundamental. Glenn - Original Message - From: "Kelley, Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 5:06 AM Subject: RE: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG It wasn't a premier article. I had pulled up the article when I sent the e-mail but now I can't find it either. It's not even on the list of bugs that the rollup hotfix addresses. Basically the mailbox size in ESM is different than what outlook tells the user and when you run an isinteg the mailbox size in ESM is larger, more accurate to what outlook says it is. Sorry I didn't send the full link initially Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Corbett Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 2:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG Is that a premier only article ? cant seem to find it on technet. G. - Original Message - From: "Kelley, Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 6:34 PM Subject: RE: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG Check out Q article Q818830 We applied the single instance store hotfix before it was part of the Sept hotfix rollup. When we ran isinteg we had many mailboxes jump in size. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Corbett Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 9:54 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG All, Recently we have been having some strange behaviours with user mailboxes, such as users being denied access to folders in their mailboxes, rules disappearing etc. After running ISINTEG on all stores (approx 20), a number of errors were found and fixed...all good so far. After remounting the stores everything looked fineuntil the next morning when people came back to work. A number of mailboxes had suddenly a LOT more mail in their inboxes and deleted items folders, some users over 200mb worth, which threw a lot of the organisation over the store limits and stopped them sending and receiving mail. We temporarily increased the store limits to cope with the problem, however we are still at a loss to explain what happened. After speaking with PSS, they are also at a bit of a loss as well. I've also checked Technet and other online resources, but no mention is made of this sort of problem. - Some users had no effect on their mailboxes - Some users had lots of mail return to either their deleted items or inbox (we are surmising that the way the message was originally deleted has determined where it came back to - shift-delete - back to inbox, deleted via deleted items - back to delete items). - The restored messages don't seem to be from the previous days. In all of the cases we have confirmed, messages deleted the couple of days previous didn't come back, but messages deleted prior to that did come back. Has anyone seen this behaviour before and could possibly explain what happened ? As with all of these things, the people most affected were senior management, and they are screaming for a satisfactory response. Config: Windows 2000 SP2 with hotfixes Exchange 2000 SP2 - 6 Servers, 2 badly affected, 1 with minor effects, 3 not affected at all Trend Scanmail installed on all servers 1 Storage group on each server, between 2 and 4 databases per storage group On the servers that were affected, only one or two of the 4 stores was affected. As far as we can determine, either Exchange wasn't properly cleaning out deleted items from mailboxes (but was reducing the size of mailboxes as users were under the mailbox limit cap until the messages were restored), OR something happened and exchange replayed some of the transaction logs restoring old messages (but in that case all of the stores in the storage group should have been affected, but weren't) Thoughts ? TIA Glenn Corbett _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___
Re: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG
Don. BAS ? Anyhoo... Disabling the AV software is certainly something that we have considered, however with the current raft of virii going around, its fairly low on the list, and other servers running exactly the same software and hardware config aren't affected. I would need some pretty serious convincing to disable the AV system on the server for an extended period. MS didnt mention / find anything that pointed at possible AV issues, and disabling it wasnt even mentioned as an option by MS. Yes, we have considered Sp3 for Exchange, however with the "feature" in SP3 of changes to the public folder rights (yes, I know it was fixed in a hotfix), we had put it on hold until the rollup came out this month before we applied it. I also inherited the Exchange servers around March this year in their current state, so have been reluctant to do major patchwork on them as the underlying build is not documented. And no, we aren't vulnerable to blaster/welchia etc, as we have the hotfix applied (and applied it several weeks ago), as the patch can be applied to SP2, 3 or 4 based 2k systems. We did get a spot of welchia on the network, but the exchange servers were unaffected. The main issue we have to deal with atm is that upping the storage limits for the organisation to cope with the massive increase in "undeleted" email has overcommitted our disk space allocations in Exchange by a factor of 8-10 times. We are currently working on a "clean" method of reducing the store limits without impacting the user population, and still allow us to reduce this overcommitment. We have a KVS project in the works to resolve this issue in the longer term. We had a lengthy meeting with MS today about the issue, and their recommendations are basically: - Don't touch the current servers that have the corruption (even though we have cleaned them up). This includes performing any patching or upgrades. The reasoning behind this is that running an Exchange SP on the server may force a db upgrade and "pooch" the databases completely. - Install new kit running the latest of everything (Win2k SP's and hotfixes, E2k Sp's and hotfixes) - Do a managed migration of mailboxes from the existing kit to the new kit, running ISINTEG at regular intervals to see if a) the corruption is returning, and b) if it is, to try and determine if its a hardware problem, or Move Mailbox is bringing the corruption along with it. We were planning on doing an Exchange consolidation anyway (6 servers to 3 + gateways), this has simply bought forward our plans. At least the new servers are cool...Dual 2.8ghz Xeon, 2gb RAM, 12 x 72gb drives, and Dual GBit Ethernet *grin*lucky I'm not paying for them. G. - Original Message - From: "Ely, Don" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 9:42 AM Subject: RE: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG > Damn Glenn! That is some serious BAS(tm) you got there! > > Have you tried disabling the AV software for a start? Have you considered > SP3 for Exchange? Are you aware you are vulnerable to MSBlaster running W2k > SP2? > > -Original Message- > From: Glenn Corbett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 12:54 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG > > All, > > Recently we have been having some strange behaviours with user mailboxes, > such as users being denied access to folders in their mailboxes, rules > disappearing etc. After running ISINTEG on all stores (approx 20), a number > of errors were found and fixed...all good so far. After remounting the > stores everything looked fineuntil the next morning when people came > back to work. > > A number of mailboxes had suddenly a LOT more mail in their inboxes and > deleted items folders, some users over 200mb worth, which threw a lot of the > organisation over the store limits and stopped them sending and receiving > mail. We temporarily increased the store limits to cope with the problem, > however we are still at a loss to explain what happened. > > After speaking with PSS, they are also at a bit of a loss as well. I've also > checked Technet and other online resources, but no mention is made of this > sort of problem. > > - Some users had no effect on their mailboxes > - Some users had lots of mail return to either their deleted items or inbox > (we are surmising that the way the message was originally deleted has > determined where it came back to - shift-delete - back to inbox, deleted via > deleted items - back to delete items). > - The restored messages don't seem to be from the previous days. In all of > the cases we have confirmed, messages deleted the couple of days previous > didn
RE: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG
Damn Glenn! That is some serious BAS(tm) you got there! Have you tried disabling the AV software for a start? Have you considered SP3 for Exchange? Are you aware you are vulnerable to MSBlaster running W2k SP2? -Original Message- From: Glenn Corbett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 12:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG All, Recently we have been having some strange behaviours with user mailboxes, such as users being denied access to folders in their mailboxes, rules disappearing etc. After running ISINTEG on all stores (approx 20), a number of errors were found and fixed...all good so far. After remounting the stores everything looked fineuntil the next morning when people came back to work. A number of mailboxes had suddenly a LOT more mail in their inboxes and deleted items folders, some users over 200mb worth, which threw a lot of the organisation over the store limits and stopped them sending and receiving mail. We temporarily increased the store limits to cope with the problem, however we are still at a loss to explain what happened. After speaking with PSS, they are also at a bit of a loss as well. I've also checked Technet and other online resources, but no mention is made of this sort of problem. - Some users had no effect on their mailboxes - Some users had lots of mail return to either their deleted items or inbox (we are surmising that the way the message was originally deleted has determined where it came back to - shift-delete - back to inbox, deleted via deleted items - back to delete items). - The restored messages don't seem to be from the previous days. In all of the cases we have confirmed, messages deleted the couple of days previous didn't come back, but messages deleted prior to that did come back. Has anyone seen this behaviour before and could possibly explain what happened ? As with all of these things, the people most affected were senior management, and they are screaming for a satisfactory response. Config: Windows 2000 SP2 with hotfixes Exchange 2000 SP2 - 6 Servers, 2 badly affected, 1 with minor effects, 3 not affected at all Trend Scanmail installed on all servers 1 Storage group on each server, between 2 and 4 databases per storage group On the servers that were affected, only one or two of the 4 stores was affected. As far as we can determine, either Exchange wasn't properly cleaning out deleted items from mailboxes (but was reducing the size of mailboxes as users were under the mailbox limit cap until the messages were restored), OR something happened and exchange replayed some of the transaction logs restoring old messages (but in that case all of the stores in the storage group should have been affected, but weren't) Thoughts ? TIA Glenn Corbett _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG
It wasn't a premier article. I had pulled up the article when I sent the e-mail but now I can't find it either. It's not even on the list of bugs that the rollup hotfix addresses. Basically the mailbox size in ESM is different than what outlook tells the user and when you run an isinteg the mailbox size in ESM is larger, more accurate to what outlook says it is. Sorry I didn't send the full link initially Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Corbett Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 2:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG Is that a premier only article ? cant seem to find it on technet. G. - Original Message - From: "Kelley, Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 6:34 PM Subject: RE: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG Check out Q article Q818830 We applied the single instance store hotfix before it was part of the Sept hotfix rollup. When we ran isinteg we had many mailboxes jump in size. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Corbett Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 9:54 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG All, Recently we have been having some strange behaviours with user mailboxes, such as users being denied access to folders in their mailboxes, rules disappearing etc. After running ISINTEG on all stores (approx 20), a number of errors were found and fixed...all good so far. After remounting the stores everything looked fineuntil the next morning when people came back to work. A number of mailboxes had suddenly a LOT more mail in their inboxes and deleted items folders, some users over 200mb worth, which threw a lot of the organisation over the store limits and stopped them sending and receiving mail. We temporarily increased the store limits to cope with the problem, however we are still at a loss to explain what happened. After speaking with PSS, they are also at a bit of a loss as well. I've also checked Technet and other online resources, but no mention is made of this sort of problem. - Some users had no effect on their mailboxes - Some users had lots of mail return to either their deleted items or inbox (we are surmising that the way the message was originally deleted has determined where it came back to - shift-delete - back to inbox, deleted via deleted items - back to delete items). - The restored messages don't seem to be from the previous days. In all of the cases we have confirmed, messages deleted the couple of days previous didn't come back, but messages deleted prior to that did come back. Has anyone seen this behaviour before and could possibly explain what happened ? As with all of these things, the people most affected were senior management, and they are screaming for a satisfactory response. Config: Windows 2000 SP2 with hotfixes Exchange 2000 SP2 - 6 Servers, 2 badly affected, 1 with minor effects, 3 not affected at all Trend Scanmail installed on all servers 1 Storage group on each server, between 2 and 4 databases per storage group On the servers that were affected, only one or two of the 4 stores was affected. As far as we can determine, either Exchange wasn't properly cleaning out deleted items from mailboxes (but was reducing the size of mailboxes as users were under the mailbox limit cap until the messages were restored), OR something happened and exchange replayed some of the transaction logs restoring old messages (but in that case all of the stores in the storage group should have been affected, but weren't) Thoughts ? TIA Glenn Corbett _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm We
Re: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG
Is that a premier only article ? cant seem to find it on technet. G. - Original Message - From: "Kelley, Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 6:34 PM Subject: RE: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG Check out Q article Q818830 We applied the single instance store hotfix before it was part of the Sept hotfix rollup. When we ran isinteg we had many mailboxes jump in size. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Corbett Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 9:54 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG All, Recently we have been having some strange behaviours with user mailboxes, such as users being denied access to folders in their mailboxes, rules disappearing etc. After running ISINTEG on all stores (approx 20), a number of errors were found and fixed...all good so far. After remounting the stores everything looked fineuntil the next morning when people came back to work. A number of mailboxes had suddenly a LOT more mail in their inboxes and deleted items folders, some users over 200mb worth, which threw a lot of the organisation over the store limits and stopped them sending and receiving mail. We temporarily increased the store limits to cope with the problem, however we are still at a loss to explain what happened. After speaking with PSS, they are also at a bit of a loss as well. I've also checked Technet and other online resources, but no mention is made of this sort of problem. - Some users had no effect on their mailboxes - Some users had lots of mail return to either their deleted items or inbox (we are surmising that the way the message was originally deleted has determined where it came back to - shift-delete - back to inbox, deleted via deleted items - back to delete items). - The restored messages don't seem to be from the previous days. In all of the cases we have confirmed, messages deleted the couple of days previous didn't come back, but messages deleted prior to that did come back. Has anyone seen this behaviour before and could possibly explain what happened ? As with all of these things, the people most affected were senior management, and they are screaming for a satisfactory response. Config: Windows 2000 SP2 with hotfixes Exchange 2000 SP2 - 6 Servers, 2 badly affected, 1 with minor effects, 3 not affected at all Trend Scanmail installed on all servers 1 Storage group on each server, between 2 and 4 databases per storage group On the servers that were affected, only one or two of the 4 stores was affected. As far as we can determine, either Exchange wasn't properly cleaning out deleted items from mailboxes (but was reducing the size of mailboxes as users were under the mailbox limit cap until the messages were restored), OR something happened and exchange replayed some of the transaction logs restoring old messages (but in that case all of the stores in the storage group should have been affected, but weren't) Thoughts ? TIA Glenn Corbett _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG
Check out Q article Q818830 We applied the single instance store hotfix before it was part of the Sept hotfix rollup. When we ran isinteg we had many mailboxes jump in size. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Corbett Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 9:54 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG All, Recently we have been having some strange behaviours with user mailboxes, such as users being denied access to folders in their mailboxes, rules disappearing etc. After running ISINTEG on all stores (approx 20), a number of errors were found and fixed...all good so far. After remounting the stores everything looked fineuntil the next morning when people came back to work. A number of mailboxes had suddenly a LOT more mail in their inboxes and deleted items folders, some users over 200mb worth, which threw a lot of the organisation over the store limits and stopped them sending and receiving mail. We temporarily increased the store limits to cope with the problem, however we are still at a loss to explain what happened. After speaking with PSS, they are also at a bit of a loss as well. I've also checked Technet and other online resources, but no mention is made of this sort of problem. - Some users had no effect on their mailboxes - Some users had lots of mail return to either their deleted items or inbox (we are surmising that the way the message was originally deleted has determined where it came back to - shift-delete - back to inbox, deleted via deleted items - back to delete items). - The restored messages don't seem to be from the previous days. In all of the cases we have confirmed, messages deleted the couple of days previous didn't come back, but messages deleted prior to that did come back. Has anyone seen this behaviour before and could possibly explain what happened ? As with all of these things, the people most affected were senior management, and they are screaming for a satisfactory response. Config: Windows 2000 SP2 with hotfixes Exchange 2000 SP2 - 6 Servers, 2 badly affected, 1 with minor effects, 3 not affected at all Trend Scanmail installed on all servers 1 Storage group on each server, between 2 and 4 databases per storage group On the servers that were affected, only one or two of the 4 stores was affected. As far as we can determine, either Exchange wasn't properly cleaning out deleted items from mailboxes (but was reducing the size of mailboxes as users were under the mailbox limit cap until the messages were restored), OR something happened and exchange replayed some of the transaction logs restoring old messages (but in that case all of the stores in the storage group should have been affected, but weren't) Thoughts ? TIA Glenn Corbett _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG
All, Recently we have been having some strange behaviours with user mailboxes, such as users being denied access to folders in their mailboxes, rules disappearing etc. After running ISINTEG on all stores (approx 20), a number of errors were found and fixed...all good so far. After remounting the stores everything looked fineuntil the next morning when people came back to work. A number of mailboxes had suddenly a LOT more mail in their inboxes and deleted items folders, some users over 200mb worth, which threw a lot of the organisation over the store limits and stopped them sending and receiving mail. We temporarily increased the store limits to cope with the problem, however we are still at a loss to explain what happened. After speaking with PSS, they are also at a bit of a loss as well. I've also checked Technet and other online resources, but no mention is made of this sort of problem. - Some users had no effect on their mailboxes - Some users had lots of mail return to either their deleted items or inbox (we are surmising that the way the message was originally deleted has determined where it came back to - shift-delete - back to inbox, deleted via deleted items - back to delete items). - The restored messages don't seem to be from the previous days. In all of the cases we have confirmed, messages deleted the couple of days previous didn't come back, but messages deleted prior to that did come back. Has anyone seen this behaviour before and could possibly explain what happened ? As with all of these things, the people most affected were senior management, and they are screaming for a satisfactory response. Config: Windows 2000 SP2 with hotfixes Exchange 2000 SP2 - 6 Servers, 2 badly affected, 1 with minor effects, 3 not affected at all Trend Scanmail installed on all servers 1 Storage group on each server, between 2 and 4 databases per storage group On the servers that were affected, only one or two of the 4 stores was affected. As far as we can determine, either Exchange wasn't properly cleaning out deleted items from mailboxes (but was reducing the size of mailboxes as users were under the mailbox limit cap until the messages were restored), OR something happened and exchange replayed some of the transaction logs restoring old messages (but in that case all of the stores in the storage group should have been affected, but weren't) Thoughts ? TIA Glenn Corbett _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange OWA behaviour
I believe disabling parent paths is what has caused the behavior you are seeing. You might try tweaking settings to allow parent paths only on the OWA website in your lab, but I'd test it thoroughly before making any changes to your production servers. -Original Message- From: Rui Silva [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:51 AM Posted To: swynk Conversation: Strange OWA behaviour Subject: RE: Strange OWA behaviour Sorry, I missed that one... Exchange 2000 SP3 + Post_SP3_Rollup, Windows 2000 SP4. Changes made recently: - Changed registry value restrictanonymous from 0 to 2 - disabled parent paths in IIS -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 16:10 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange OWA behaviour Exchange version? Service pack? OS? Service pack? Changes made to system recently? -Original Message- From: Rui Silva [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:44 AM Posted To: swynk Conversation: Strange OWA behaviour Subject: Strange OWA behaviour Hi all. Suddenly my OWA stopped functioning. Now when I open my browser (IE 6.0 SP1) and go to the OWA site I get a directory listing with folders for each of my organisation users. Any idea? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange OWA behaviour
Sorry, I missed that one... Exchange 2000 SP3 + Post_SP3_Rollup, Windows 2000 SP4. Changes made recently: - Changed registry value restrictanonymous from 0 to 2 - disabled parent paths in IIS -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 16:10 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange OWA behaviour Exchange version? Service pack? OS? Service pack? Changes made to system recently? -Original Message- From: Rui Silva [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:44 AM Posted To: swynk Conversation: Strange OWA behaviour Subject: Strange OWA behaviour Hi all. Suddenly my OWA stopped functioning. Now when I open my browser (IE 6.0 SP1) and go to the OWA site I get a directory listing with folders for each of my organisation users. Any idea? 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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange OWA behaviour
Exchange version? Service pack? OS? Service pack? Changes made to system recently? -Original Message- From: Rui Silva [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:44 AM Posted To: swynk Conversation: Strange OWA behaviour Subject: Strange OWA behaviour Hi all. Suddenly my OWA stopped functioning. Now when I open my browser (IE 6.0 SP1) and go to the OWA site I get a directory listing with folders for each of my organisation users. Any idea? 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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange OWA behaviour
Sounds like someone has enabled "directory browsing" on the Exch virtual directory. - Original Message - From: "Rui Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 5:43 AM Subject: Strange OWA behaviour Hi all. Suddenly my OWA stopped functioning. Now when I open my browser (IE 6.0 SP1) and go to the OWA site I get a directory listing with folders for each of my organisation users. Any idea? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FW: Strange OWA behaviour
OK, I found KB article q289869 that solved my situation (after a reboot) http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;289869 I wonder what caused this situation? I think it has something to do with DAVEX... -Original Message- From: Rui Silva Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:44 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange OWA behaviour Hi all. Suddenly my OWA stopped functioning. Now when I open my browser (IE 6.0 SP1) and go to the OWA site I get a directory listing with folders for each of my organisation users. Any idea? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strange OWA behaviour
Hi all. Suddenly my OWA stopped functioning. Now when I open my browser (IE 6.0 SP1) and go to the OWA site I get a directory listing with folders for each of my organisation users. Any idea? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Exchange
One of those devices is running low on disk space? -Original Message- From: Bruess, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Exchange Yes to virus filter. We use Norton, we also have a file wall but I can find no settings for limiting the size of e-mail. -Original Message- From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject:RE: Strange Exchange That is exactly what he's saying. Do you have a SMTP Gateway setup to stop spam, or a virus filter, or both? Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 Get a Life! Get TWO! Play Second Life! http://secondlife.com/ss/?u=b4ebbfdd6af98a027fa7e89a86c55a68 -Original Message- From: Bruess, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Exchange Sorry, I am trying to troubleshoot a problem that I have very little knowledge in so if I appear to be a bit slow please forgive me. Your statement saying exchange is not listening confuses me. Are you saying there is some other software running between my exchange server and the rest of the world which is placing its limits on the mail? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Strange Exchange Again, as per the last message you posted and I responded to, this error is not being generated by Exchange. It is being generated by whatever is listening at your default gateway. Your mx record may be labeled exchange.satake-usa.com, but whatever is listening isn't Exchange. nslookup Default Server: m1w2ksit01.austin.messageone.com Address: 10.0.0.246 > set q=mx > satake-usa.com Server: m1w2ksit01.austin.messageone.com Address: 10.0.0.246 Non-authoritative answer: satake-usa.com preference = 10, mail exchanger = exchange.satake-usa.com Authoritative answers can be found from: satake-usa.com nameserver = ns2.satake-usa.com satake-usa.com nameserver = ns1.satake-usa.com exchange.satake-usa.com internet address = 66.139.24.50 telnet exchange.satake-usa.com 25 Trying 66.139.24.50... Connected to exchange.satake-usa.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 SMTP service ready ehlo foo.bar 250-Requested mail action okay, completed 250-HELP 250 SIZE 3072000 Whatever is listening does indeed have a storage limit. I'm not sure why 30 seconds of research is not possible by anyone else on the list this morning, but the answer seems abundantly clear once one stops throwing out wild guesses and actually applies some kind of methodology to troubleshooting. > From: "Don Bruess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:41:17 -0700 > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Strange Exchange > > I am having a problem with exchange sending NDR 552 to people sending > large files. I have verified the system default has no limits on a > per messages or over all on storage. I have also verified my personal > box has no limits that could override the defaults. I do not know when > this started happening but I do know I use to be able to receive any > size files. Is there another settings somewhere I have missed? It > appears to be limiting e-mail to around 2 meg max and is applying the > same rule to the entire exchange server. > > Thanks, > dl _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: ma
RE: Strange Exchange
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dickenson, Steven Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Exchange I think someone needs a nap. Steven --- Steven Dickenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Network Administrator The Key School, Annapolis Maryland -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Strange Exchange I'm not sure why 30 seconds of research is not possible by anyone else on the list this morning, but the answer seems abundantly clear once one stops throwing out wild guesses and actually applies some kind of methodology to troubleshooting. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Exchange
The disk has 12gig left on it so I don't think that is the problem. Don -Original Message- From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Exchange Could it be that the someone is sending a file that would take up all the rest of the disk space you have reserved for Exchange? Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 Get a Life! Get TWO! Play Second Life! http://secondlife.com/ss/?u=b4ebbfdd6af98a027fa7e89a86c55a68 -Original Message- From: Don Bruess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange Exchange I am having a problem with exchange sending NDR 552 to people sending large files. I have verified the system default has no limits on a per messages or over all on storage. I have also verified my personal box has no limits that could override the defaults. I do not know when this started happening but I do know I use to be able to receive any size files. Is there another settings somewhere I have missed? It appears to be limiting e-mail to around 2 meg max and is applying the same rule to the entire exchange server. Thanks, dl _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Exchange
But the mailbox has no limits on either the individual or the default. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject:RE: Strange Exchange Its not the attachment per se that's too big. Its that it is causing the mailbox to go over its size limit. -Original Message- From: Bruess, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Exchange The original message was received at Fri, 8 Aug 2003 05:34:09 -0700 (PDT) from localhost [127.0.0.1] - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (reason: 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation) - Transcript of session follows - ... while talking to exchange.satake-usa.com.: >>> MAIL From:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SIZE'80870 <<< 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable - Message header follows - Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from ElCapitan.ad.unocal.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by unogate.unocal.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h78CY4pQ015614 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 05:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Halfdome.ad.unocal.com ([134.248.1.120]) by ElCapitan.ad.unocal.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 8 Aug 2003 05:34:04 -0700 Received: from slexch2.ad.unocal.com ([134.248.127.15]) by Halfdome.ad.unocal.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 8 Aug 2003 05:33:36 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject:FW: All updated presentation Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_=_NextPart_001_01C35DA9.45821769" Disposition-Notification-To: "Bruess, Chunju " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 07:33:29 -0500 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: All updated presentation Thread-Index: AcMCvtqAuvtPm9kjTumOUFa73R55mRa6j3Mg From: "Bruess, Chunju " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Aug 2003 12:33:36.0070 (UTC) FILETIME=[49833E60:01C35DA9] - Message body suppressed - -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject:RE: Strange Exchange Please post the complete NDR -Original Message- From: Don Bruess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 8:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange Exchange I am having a problem with exchange sending NDR 552 to people sending large files. I have verified the system default has no limits on a per messages or over all on storage. I have also verified my personal box has no limits that could override the defaults. I do not know when this started happening but I do know I use to be able to receive any size files. Is there another settings somewhere I have missed? It appears to be limiting e-mail to around 2 meg max and is applying the same rule to the entire exchange server. Thanks, dl _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange NDR
Anyways, I figured it out. He was forwarding a yahoo email message(html) and it had an embedded GIF image on it that may be acting as a beacon. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions It means that the mail relay clientmail2.amicus.com either A) doesn't like you or 2) is horribly isconfigured by someone who shouldn't be touching production mail systems. I'd vote for A personally, but I could see 2 as a valid option too.. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Carmila Fresco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 4:18 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Strange NDR > > > > We got this strange NDR. Does anyone know what it means? > Been looking > it up but I can't find what the web bugs not accepted here message > means. This was generated by our external > > You do not have permission to send to this recipient. For assistance, > contact your system administrator. > < clientmail2.amicus.com #5.7.1 SMTP; 554 5.7.1 Web bugs not accepted > here (qid: h7EJQ7Mn023111), caught on imbaspam-ny04> > > Thanks, > Carmila > > > You do not have permission to send to this recipient. For assistance, > contact your system administrator. > < clientmail2.amicus.com #5.7.1 SMTP; 554 5.7.1 Web bugs not accepted > here (qid: h7EJQ7Mn023111), caught on imbaspam-ny04> > > > > > This email message may contain information that is confidential and > proprietary to Babcock & Brown or a third party. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original > and any copies of the original message. Babcock & Brown takes > measures to protect the content of its communications. However, > Babcock & Brown cannot guarantee that email messages will not be > intercepted by third parties or that email messages will be free of > errors or viruses. > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_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=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This email message may contain information that is confidential and proprietary to Babcock & Brown or a third party. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original and any copies of the original message. Babcock & Brown takes measures to protect the content of its communications. However, Babcock & Brown cannot guarantee that email messages will not be intercepted by third parties or that email messages will be free of errors or viruses. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange NDR
Amicus is our external relay. They cannot like us since we pay them. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions It means that the mail relay clientmail2.amicus.com either A) doesn't like you or 2) is horribly isconfigured by someone who shouldn't be touching production mail systems. I'd vote for A personally, but I could see 2 as a valid option too.. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Carmila Fresco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 4:18 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Strange NDR > > > > We got this strange NDR. Does anyone know what it means? > Been looking > it up but I can't find what the web bugs not accepted here message > means. This was generated by our external > > You do not have permission to send to this recipient. For assistance, > contact your system administrator. > < clientmail2.amicus.com #5.7.1 SMTP; 554 5.7.1 Web bugs not accepted > here (qid: h7EJQ7Mn023111), caught on imbaspam-ny04> > > Thanks, > Carmila > > > You do not have permission to send to this recipient. For assistance, > contact your system administrator. > < clientmail2.amicus.com #5.7.1 SMTP; 554 5.7.1 Web bugs not accepted > here (qid: h7EJQ7Mn023111), caught on imbaspam-ny04> > > > > > This email message may contain information that is confidential and > proprietary to Babcock & Brown or a third party. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original > and any copies of the original message. Babcock & Brown takes > measures to protect the content of its communications. However, > Babcock & Brown cannot guarantee that email messages will not be > intercepted by third parties or that email messages will be free of > errors or viruses. > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_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=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This email message may contain information that is confidential and proprietary to Babcock & Brown or a third party. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original and any copies of the original message. Babcock & Brown takes measures to protect the content of its communications. However, Babcock & Brown cannot guarantee that email messages will not be intercepted by third parties or that email messages will be free of errors or viruses. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange NDR
It means that the mail relay clientmail2.amicus.com either A) doesn't like you or 2) is horribly isconfigured by someone who shouldn't be touching production mail systems. I'd vote for A personally, but I could see 2 as a valid option too.. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Carmila Fresco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 4:18 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Strange NDR > > > > We got this strange NDR. Does anyone know what it means? > Been looking > it up but I can't find what the web bugs not accepted here message > means. This was generated by our external > > You do not have permission to send to this recipient. For assistance, > contact your system administrator. > < clientmail2.amicus.com #5.7.1 SMTP; 554 5.7.1 Web bugs not accepted > here (qid: h7EJQ7Mn023111), caught on imbaspam-ny04> > > Thanks, > Carmila > > > You do not have permission to send to this recipient. For assistance, > contact your system administrator. > < clientmail2.amicus.com #5.7.1 SMTP; 554 5.7.1 Web bugs not accepted > here (qid: h7EJQ7Mn023111), caught on imbaspam-ny04> > > > > > This email message may contain information that is > confidential and proprietary to Babcock & Brown or a third > party. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact > the sender and destroy the original and any copies of the > original message. Babcock & Brown takes measures to protect > the content of its communications. However, Babcock & Brown > cannot guarantee that email messages will not be intercepted > by third parties or that email messages will be free of > errors or viruses. > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strange NDR
We got this strange NDR. Does anyone know what it means? Been looking it up but I can't find what the web bugs not accepted here message means. This was generated by our external You do not have permission to send to this recipient. For assistance, contact your system administrator. < clientmail2.amicus.com #5.7.1 SMTP; 554 5.7.1 Web bugs not accepted here (qid: h7EJQ7Mn023111), caught on imbaspam-ny04> Thanks, Carmila You do not have permission to send to this recipient. For assistance, contact your system administrator. < clientmail2.amicus.com #5.7.1 SMTP; 554 5.7.1 Web bugs not accepted here (qid: h7EJQ7Mn023111), caught on imbaspam-ny04> This email message may contain information that is confidential and proprietary to Babcock & Brown or a third party. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original and any copies of the original message. Babcock & Brown takes measures to protect the content of its communications. However, Babcock & Brown cannot guarantee that email messages will not be intercepted by third parties or that email messages will be free of errors or viruses. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Exchange
Sorry, I am trying to troubleshoot a problem that I have very little knowledge in so if I appear to be a bit slow please forgive me. Your statement saying exchange is not listening confuses me. Are you saying there is some other software running between my exchange server and the rest of the world which is placing its limits on the mail? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject:Re: Strange Exchange Again, as per the last message you posted and I responded to, this error is not being generated by Exchange. It is being generated by whatever is listening at your default gateway. Your mx record may be labeled exchange.satake-usa.com, but whatever is listening isn't Exchange. nslookup Default Server: m1w2ksit01.austin.messageone.com Address: 10.0.0.246 > set q=mx > satake-usa.com Server: m1w2ksit01.austin.messageone.com Address: 10.0.0.246 Non-authoritative answer: satake-usa.com preference = 10, mail exchanger = exchange.satake-usa.com Authoritative answers can be found from: satake-usa.com nameserver = ns2.satake-usa.com satake-usa.com nameserver = ns1.satake-usa.com exchange.satake-usa.com internet address = 66.139.24.50 telnet exchange.satake-usa.com 25 Trying 66.139.24.50... Connected to exchange.satake-usa.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 SMTP service ready ehlo foo.bar 250-Requested mail action okay, completed 250-HELP 250 SIZE 3072000 Whatever is listening does indeed have a storage limit. I'm not sure why 30 seconds of research is not possible by anyone else on the list this morning, but the answer seems abundantly clear once one stops throwing out wild guesses and actually applies some kind of methodology to troubleshooting. > From: "Don Bruess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:41:17 -0700 > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Strange Exchange > > I am having a problem with exchange sending NDR 552 to people sending > large files. I have verified the system default has no limits on a per > messages or over all on storage. I have also verified my personal box has > no limits that could override the defaults. I do not know when this > started happening but I do know I use to be able to receive any size > files. Is there another settings somewhere I have missed? It appears to > be limiting e-mail to around 2 meg max and is applying the same rule to > the entire exchange server. > > Thanks, > dl _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Exchange
I think someone needs a nap. Steven --- Steven Dickenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Network Administrator The Key School, Annapolis Maryland -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Strange Exchange I'm not sure why 30 seconds of research is not possible by anyone else on the list this morning, but the answer seems abundantly clear once one stops throwing out wild guesses and actually applies some kind of methodology to troubleshooting. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Exchange
Well, look in Norton's Virus Filter and see if they setup a limit on message size. Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 Get a Life! Get TWO! Play Second Life! http://secondlife.com/ss/?u=b4ebbfdd6af98a027fa7e89a86c55a68 -Original Message- From: Bruess, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Exchange Yes to virus filter. We use Norton, we also have a file wall but I can find no settings for limiting the size of e-mail. -Original Message- From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Exchange That is exactly what he's saying. Do you have a SMTP Gateway setup to stop spam, or a virus filter, or both? Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 Get a Life! Get TWO! Play Second Life! http://secondlife.com/ss/?u=b4ebbfdd6af98a027fa7e89a86c55a68 -Original Message- From: Bruess, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Exchange Sorry, I am trying to troubleshoot a problem that I have very little knowledge in so if I appear to be a bit slow please forgive me. Your statement saying exchange is not listening confuses me. Are you saying there is some other software running between my exchange server and the rest of the world which is placing its limits on the mail? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Strange Exchange Again, as per the last message you posted and I responded to, this error is not being generated by Exchange. It is being generated by whatever is listening at your default gateway. Your mx record may be labeled exchange.satake-usa.com, but whatever is listening isn't Exchange. nslookup Default Server: m1w2ksit01.austin.messageone.com Address: 10.0.0.246 > set q=mx > satake-usa.com Server: m1w2ksit01.austin.messageone.com Address: 10.0.0.246 Non-authoritative answer: satake-usa.com preference = 10, mail exchanger = exchange.satake-usa.com Authoritative answers can be found from: satake-usa.com nameserver = ns2.satake-usa.com satake-usa.com nameserver = ns1.satake-usa.com exchange.satake-usa.com internet address = 66.139.24.50 telnet exchange.satake-usa.com 25 Trying 66.139.24.50... Connected to exchange.satake-usa.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 SMTP service ready ehlo foo.bar 250-Requested mail action okay, completed 250-HELP 250 SIZE 3072000 Whatever is listening does indeed have a storage limit. I'm not sure why 30 seconds of research is not possible by anyone else on the list this morning, but the answer seems abundantly clear once one stops throwing out wild guesses and actually applies some kind of methodology to troubleshooting. > From: "Don Bruess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:41:17 -0700 > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Strange Exchange > > I am having a problem with exchange sending NDR 552 to people sending > large files. I have verified the system default has no limits on a > per messages or over all on storage. I have also verified my personal > box has no limits that could override the defaults. I do not know when > this started happening but I do know I use to be able to receive any > size files. Is there another settings somewhere I have missed? It > appears to be limiting e-mail to around 2 meg max and is applying the > same rule to the entire exchange server. > > Thanks, > dl _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&; lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___
RE: Strange Exchange
The SMTP Virtual Servers don't have any limits either? There are three places for message size limits - Org-level under Global Settings/Message Delivery - User-level in the user properties - SMTP in the virtual SMTP server settings You have 12 GB of disk space left, but is that on the partition where SMTP Virtual Server has its queue files (by default the queue partition is where Exchange program files are installed)? Just asking, maybe your queue partition is low on disk space. -Original Message- From: Don Bruess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange Exchange I am having a problem with exchange sending NDR 552 to people sending large files. I have verified the system default has no limits on a per messages or over all on storage. I have also verified my personal box has no limits that could override the defaults. I do not know when this started happening but I do know I use to be able to receive any size files. Is there another settings somewhere I have missed? It appears to be limiting e-mail to around 2 meg max and is applying the same rule to the entire exchange server. Thanks, dl _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Exchange
Its not the attachment per se that's too big. Its that it is causing the mailbox to go over its size limit. -Original Message- From: Bruess, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Exchange The original message was received at Fri, 8 Aug 2003 05:34:09 -0700 (PDT) from localhost [127.0.0.1] - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (reason: 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation) - Transcript of session follows - ... while talking to exchange.satake-usa.com.: >>> MAIL From:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SIZE'80870 <<< 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable - Message header follows - Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from ElCapitan.ad.unocal.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by unogate.unocal.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h78CY4pQ015614 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 05:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Halfdome.ad.unocal.com ([134.248.1.120]) by ElCapitan.ad.unocal.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 8 Aug 2003 05:34:04 -0700 Received: from slexch2.ad.unocal.com ([134.248.127.15]) by Halfdome.ad.unocal.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 8 Aug 2003 05:33:36 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject:FW: All updated presentation Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_=_NextPart_001_01C35DA9.45821769" Disposition-Notification-To: "Bruess, Chunju " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 07:33:29 -0500 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: All updated presentation Thread-Index: AcMCvtqAuvtPm9kjTumOUFa73R55mRa6j3Mg From: "Bruess, Chunju " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Aug 2003 12:33:36.0070 (UTC) FILETIME=[49833E60:01C35DA9] - Message body suppressed - -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject:RE: Strange Exchange Please post the complete NDR -Original Message- From: Don Bruess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 8:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange Exchange I am having a problem with exchange sending NDR 552 to people sending large files. I have verified the system default has no limits on a per messages or over all on storage. I have also verified my personal box has no limits that could override the defaults. I do not know when this started happening but I do know I use to be able to receive any size files. Is there another settings somewhere I have missed? It appears to be limiting e-mail to around 2 meg max and is applying the same rule to the entire exchange server. Thanks, dl _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Exchange
The original message was received at Fri, 8 Aug 2003 05:34:09 -0700 (PDT) from localhost [127.0.0.1] - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (reason: 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation) - Transcript of session follows - ... while talking to exchange.satake-usa.com.: >>> MAIL From:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SIZE'80870 <<< 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable - Message header follows - Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from ElCapitan.ad.unocal.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by unogate.unocal.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h78CY4pQ015614 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 05:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Halfdome.ad.unocal.com ([134.248.1.120]) by ElCapitan.ad.unocal.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 8 Aug 2003 05:34:04 -0700 Received: from slexch2.ad.unocal.com ([134.248.127.15]) by Halfdome.ad.unocal.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 8 Aug 2003 05:33:36 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject:FW: All updated presentation Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_=_NextPart_001_01C35DA9.45821769" Disposition-Notification-To: "Bruess, Chunju " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 07:33:29 -0500 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: All updated presentation Thread-Index: AcMCvtqAuvtPm9kjTumOUFa73R55mRa6j3Mg From: "Bruess, Chunju " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Aug 2003 12:33:36.0070 (UTC) FILETIME=[49833E60:01C35DA9] - Message body suppressed - -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject:RE: Strange Exchange Please post the complete NDR -Original Message- From: Don Bruess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 8:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange Exchange I am having a problem with exchange sending NDR 552 to people sending large files. I have verified the system default has no limits on a per messages or over all on storage. I have also verified my personal box has no limits that could override the defaults. I do not know when this started happening but I do know I use to be able to receive any size files. Is there another settings somewhere I have missed? It appears to be limiting e-mail to around 2 meg max and is applying the same rule to the entire exchange server. Thanks, dl _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Exchange
Please post the complete NDR -Original Message- From: Don Bruess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 8:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange Exchange I am having a problem with exchange sending NDR 552 to people sending large files. I have verified the system default has no limits on a per messages or over all on storage. I have also verified my personal box has no limits that could override the defaults. I do not know when this started happening but I do know I use to be able to receive any size files. Is there another settings somewhere I have missed? It appears to be limiting e-mail to around 2 meg max and is applying the same rule to the entire exchange server. Thanks, dl _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange Exchange
I was simply lamenting the off the cuff troubleshooting being done by some folks who traditionally have much stronger technical and troubleshooting skills than that. If any of them was offended, they can bite me.. or wait until I screw up and point it out with glee. Or heck, they can point back to the archives where some of my coworkers have done that for me in the past. > From: "Dickenson, Steven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:12:49 -0400 > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Strange Exchange > > I think someone needs a nap. > > Steven > --- > Steven Dickenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Network Administrator > The Key School, Annapolis Maryland > > -Original Message- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:34 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: Strange Exchange > > I'm not sure why 30 seconds of research is not possible by anyone else on > the list this morning, but the answer seems abundantly clear once one stops > throwing out wild guesses and actually applies some kind of methodology to > troubleshooting. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strange Exchange
I am having a problem with exchange sending NDR 552 to people sending large files. I have verified the system default has no limits on a per messages or over all on storage. I have also verified my personal box has no limits that could override the defaults. I do not know when this started happening but I do know I use to be able to receive any size files. Is there another settings somewhere I have missed? It appears to be limiting e-mail to around 2 meg max and is applying the same rule to the entire exchange server. Thanks, dl _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Exchange
That is exactly what he's saying. Do you have a SMTP Gateway setup to stop spam, or a virus filter, or both? Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 Get a Life! Get TWO! Play Second Life! http://secondlife.com/ss/?u=b4ebbfdd6af98a027fa7e89a86c55a68 -Original Message- From: Bruess, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Exchange Sorry, I am trying to troubleshoot a problem that I have very little knowledge in so if I appear to be a bit slow please forgive me. Your statement saying exchange is not listening confuses me. Are you saying there is some other software running between my exchange server and the rest of the world which is placing its limits on the mail? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Strange Exchange Again, as per the last message you posted and I responded to, this error is not being generated by Exchange. It is being generated by whatever is listening at your default gateway. Your mx record may be labeled exchange.satake-usa.com, but whatever is listening isn't Exchange. nslookup Default Server: m1w2ksit01.austin.messageone.com Address: 10.0.0.246 > set q=mx > satake-usa.com Server: m1w2ksit01.austin.messageone.com Address: 10.0.0.246 Non-authoritative answer: satake-usa.com preference = 10, mail exchanger = exchange.satake-usa.com Authoritative answers can be found from: satake-usa.com nameserver = ns2.satake-usa.com satake-usa.com nameserver = ns1.satake-usa.com exchange.satake-usa.com internet address = 66.139.24.50 telnet exchange.satake-usa.com 25 Trying 66.139.24.50... Connected to exchange.satake-usa.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 SMTP service ready ehlo foo.bar 250-Requested mail action okay, completed 250-HELP 250 SIZE 3072000 Whatever is listening does indeed have a storage limit. I'm not sure why 30 seconds of research is not possible by anyone else on the list this morning, but the answer seems abundantly clear once one stops throwing out wild guesses and actually applies some kind of methodology to troubleshooting. > From: "Don Bruess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:41:17 -0700 > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Strange Exchange > > I am having a problem with exchange sending NDR 552 to people sending > large files. I have verified the system default has no limits on a > per messages or over all on storage. I have also verified my personal > box has no limits that could override the defaults. I do not know when > this started happening but I do know I use to be able to receive any > size files. Is there another settings somewhere I have missed? It > appears to be limiting e-mail to around 2 meg max and is applying the > same rule to the entire exchange server. > > Thanks, > dl _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strange Problem After AD upgrade
Hello All. Here is the scenario: Exchange 5.5 Server/Windows 2000 Advanced Server This past weekend we upgraded our Domain to AD. Since the upgrade, the "Recent List" for opening others calendars in Outlook does not work. When I do a File, Open, Other Users Folders, there is a list of calendars I previously opened. Since the upgrade, when I choose one of the calendars from this "Recent List", I get an error message indicating that it could not open the IS/calendar. Anyone ever see this? I know it lost a link somewhere, but how and why? Thanks. Samantha _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Exchange
Bingo, I found on the hardware fire wall an icon I did not recognize, I researched it and found it set the size limits to 3meg. Thanks to all who helped or tried to help. Don -Original Message- From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject:RE: Strange Exchange Well, look in Norton's Virus Filter and see if they setup a limit on message size. Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 Get a Life! Get TWO! Play Second Life! http://secondlife.com/ss/?u=b4ebbfdd6af98a027fa7e89a86c55a68 -Original Message- From: Bruess, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Exchange Yes to virus filter. We use Norton, we also have a file wall but I can find no settings for limiting the size of e-mail. -Original Message- From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Exchange That is exactly what he's saying. Do you have a SMTP Gateway setup to stop spam, or a virus filter, or both? Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 Get a Life! Get TWO! Play Second Life! http://secondlife.com/ss/?u=b4ebbfdd6af98a027fa7e89a86c55a68 -Original Message- From: Bruess, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Exchange Sorry, I am trying to troubleshoot a problem that I have very little knowledge in so if I appear to be a bit slow please forgive me. Your statement saying exchange is not listening confuses me. Are you saying there is some other software running between my exchange server and the rest of the world which is placing its limits on the mail? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Strange Exchange Again, as per the last message you posted and I responded to, this error is not being generated by Exchange. It is being generated by whatever is listening at your default gateway. Your mx record may be labeled exchange.satake-usa.com, but whatever is listening isn't Exchange. nslookup Default Server: m1w2ksit01.austin.messageone.com Address: 10.0.0.246 > set q=mx > satake-usa.com Server: m1w2ksit01.austin.messageone.com Address: 10.0.0.246 Non-authoritative answer: satake-usa.com preference = 10, mail exchanger = exchange.satake-usa.com Authoritative answers can be found from: satake-usa.com nameserver = ns2.satake-usa.com satake-usa.com nameserver = ns1.satake-usa.com exchange.satake-usa.com internet address = 66.139.24.50 telnet exchange.satake-usa.com 25 Trying 66.139.24.50... Connected to exchange.satake-usa.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 SMTP service ready ehlo foo.bar 250-Requested mail action okay, completed 250-HELP 250 SIZE 3072000 Whatever is listening does indeed have a storage limit. I'm not sure why 30 seconds of research is not possible by anyone else on the list this morning, but the answer seems abundantly clear once one stops throwing out wild guesses and actually applies some kind of methodology to troubleshooting. > From: "Don Bruess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:41:17 -0700 > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Strange Exchange > > I am having a problem with exchange sending NDR 552 to people sending > large files. I have verified the system default has no limits on a > per messages or over all on storage. I have also verified my personal > box has no limits that could override the defaults. I do not know when > this started happening but I do know I use to be able to receive any > size files. Is there another settings somewhere I have missed? It > appears to be limiting e-mail to around 2 meg max and is applying the > same rule to the entire exchange server. > > Thanks, > dl _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _
RE: Strange Exchange
Could it be that the someone is sending a file that would take up all the rest of the disk space you have reserved for Exchange? Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 Get a Life! Get TWO! Play Second Life! http://secondlife.com/ss/?u=b4ebbfdd6af98a027fa7e89a86c55a68 -Original Message- From: Don Bruess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange Exchange I am having a problem with exchange sending NDR 552 to people sending large files. I have verified the system default has no limits on a per messages or over all on storage. I have also verified my personal box has no limits that could override the defaults. I do not know when this started happening but I do know I use to be able to receive any size files. Is there another settings somewhere I have missed? It appears to be limiting e-mail to around 2 meg max and is applying the same rule to the entire exchange server. Thanks, dl _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Exchange
There are two drives on the exchange server one has 12gig free the other program drive has 14gig free. There are no other drives on that system. -Original Message- From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject:RE: Strange Exchange The SMTP Virtual Servers don't have any limits either? There are three places for message size limits - Org-level under Global Settings/Message Delivery - User-level in the user properties - SMTP in the virtual SMTP server settings You have 12 GB of disk space left, but is that on the partition where SMTP Virtual Server has its queue files (by default the queue partition is where Exchange program files are installed)? Just asking, maybe your queue partition is low on disk space. -Original Message- From: Don Bruess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange Exchange I am having a problem with exchange sending NDR 552 to people sending large files. I have verified the system default has no limits on a per messages or over all on storage. I have also verified my personal box has no limits that could override the defaults. I do not know when this started happening but I do know I use to be able to receive any size files. Is there another settings somewhere I have missed? It appears to be limiting e-mail to around 2 meg max and is applying the same rule to the entire exchange server. Thanks, dl _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Exchange
Yes to virus filter. We use Norton, we also have a file wall but I can find no settings for limiting the size of e-mail. -Original Message- From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject:RE: Strange Exchange That is exactly what he's saying. Do you have a SMTP Gateway setup to stop spam, or a virus filter, or both? Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 Get a Life! Get TWO! Play Second Life! http://secondlife.com/ss/?u=b4ebbfdd6af98a027fa7e89a86c55a68 -Original Message- From: Bruess, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Exchange Sorry, I am trying to troubleshoot a problem that I have very little knowledge in so if I appear to be a bit slow please forgive me. Your statement saying exchange is not listening confuses me. Are you saying there is some other software running between my exchange server and the rest of the world which is placing its limits on the mail? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Strange Exchange Again, as per the last message you posted and I responded to, this error is not being generated by Exchange. It is being generated by whatever is listening at your default gateway. Your mx record may be labeled exchange.satake-usa.com, but whatever is listening isn't Exchange. nslookup Default Server: m1w2ksit01.austin.messageone.com Address: 10.0.0.246 > set q=mx > satake-usa.com Server: m1w2ksit01.austin.messageone.com Address: 10.0.0.246 Non-authoritative answer: satake-usa.com preference = 10, mail exchanger = exchange.satake-usa.com Authoritative answers can be found from: satake-usa.com nameserver = ns2.satake-usa.com satake-usa.com nameserver = ns1.satake-usa.com exchange.satake-usa.com internet address = 66.139.24.50 telnet exchange.satake-usa.com 25 Trying 66.139.24.50... Connected to exchange.satake-usa.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 SMTP service ready ehlo foo.bar 250-Requested mail action okay, completed 250-HELP 250 SIZE 3072000 Whatever is listening does indeed have a storage limit. I'm not sure why 30 seconds of research is not possible by anyone else on the list this morning, but the answer seems abundantly clear once one stops throwing out wild guesses and actually applies some kind of methodology to troubleshooting. > From: "Don Bruess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:41:17 -0700 > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Strange Exchange > > I am having a problem with exchange sending NDR 552 to people sending > large files. I have verified the system default has no limits on a > per messages or over all on storage. I have also verified my personal > box has no limits that could override the defaults. I do not know when > this started happening but I do know I use to be able to receive any > size files. Is there another settings somewhere I have missed? It > appears to be limiting e-mail to around 2 meg max and is applying the > same rule to the entire exchange server. > > Thanks, > dl _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange Exchange
Again, as per the last message you posted and I responded to, this error is not being generated by Exchange. It is being generated by whatever is listening at your default gateway. Your mx record may be labeled exchange.satake-usa.com, but whatever is listening isn't Exchange. nslookup Default Server: m1w2ksit01.austin.messageone.com Address: 10.0.0.246 > set q=mx > satake-usa.com Server: m1w2ksit01.austin.messageone.com Address: 10.0.0.246 Non-authoritative answer: satake-usa.com preference = 10, mail exchanger = exchange.satake-usa.com Authoritative answers can be found from: satake-usa.com nameserver = ns2.satake-usa.com satake-usa.com nameserver = ns1.satake-usa.com exchange.satake-usa.com internet address = 66.139.24.50 telnet exchange.satake-usa.com 25 Trying 66.139.24.50... Connected to exchange.satake-usa.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 SMTP service ready ehlo foo.bar 250-Requested mail action okay, completed 250-HELP 250 SIZE 3072000 Whatever is listening does indeed have a storage limit. I'm not sure why 30 seconds of research is not possible by anyone else on the list this morning, but the answer seems abundantly clear once one stops throwing out wild guesses and actually applies some kind of methodology to troubleshooting. > From: "Don Bruess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:41:17 -0700 > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Strange Exchange > > I am having a problem with exchange sending NDR 552 to people sending > large files. I have verified the system default has no limits on a per > messages or over all on storage. I have also verified my personal box has > no limits that could override the defaults. I do not know when this > started happening but I do know I use to be able to receive any size > files. Is there another settings somewhere I have missed? It appears to > be limiting e-mail to around 2 meg max and is applying the same rule to > the entire exchange server. > > Thanks, > dl _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strange relay problem
Please help! We have a strange relay problem, Exchange 2000 SP3 with Post-SP3 rollup, and we are hosting multiple domain in the Exchange server. We have setup relaying as stated everywhere, we allow only computers to send from internal network or have authenticated, and also selected all three types of authentication method. That server is the only Exchange server in the company, so we don't have SMTP connectors in the Routing connectors (but we also tried to add one with the correct settings as well). The problme is Exchange will NOT relay emails even after the authentication succeeded. We know it succeeded because we use the SMTP log on the client side and actually see it says it is logged in. But it still comes up with the 550 error. We tried several things including smtpreinstall. We tried to search on different archives and of course MS support site as well, but to no avail. Please help. Thanks a lot. Jim _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange calendar problems - Exchange 2000, Outlook 2002
Chris, Thanks for the response. I checked, and no, the user doesn't have mail delivered to a PST. The only PST in use is ARCHIVE.PST. Mail goes straight to the users' mailbox on exchange. Steve > -Original Message- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 3:28 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: Strange calendar problems - Exchange 2000, Outlook 2002 > > Does the recipient have mail delivery set to a PST file? > > On 07/25/03 14:39, "Steve Sorenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > We are having a strange problem with one user's (we'll call > her "User > > A") calendar and specifically with meeting requests. Here is the > > scenario: > > > > 1) User A sends invitation to User B for a meeting. > > 2) User B accepts invitation. > > 3) A short while later (the time varies), User A will receive a > > meeting cancellation of that meeting. > > 4) A check of User B's "Sent Items" folder shows a > cancellation even > > though they never issued the cancellation. > > > > This has happened to User A at least a half-dozen times, and is not > > with any specific recipient. Also, they have been able to send many > > other successful meeting requests. This is on Exchange 2000 > SP3 with > > Outlook > > 2002 on an all Windows 2000 network. Also, this is not happening to > > other users. > > > > Here's some of what I've tried so far: > > > > 1) I've checked the recipients' workstations for any > auto-cancel rules > > and found none. > > 2) I've scanned the workstation for viruses and found none. > > 3) Searched MS's knowledgebase and read anything I could find on > > canceled meetings. > > 4) Tried starting Outlook with the /celanfreebusy and > /cleanreminders > > switches. > > > > Any ideas? > > > > Thanks in advance for any suggestions! > > > > Steve > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode > > =&lang=e > > nglish > > 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=exchange&t ext_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange calendar problems - Exchange 2000, Outlook 2002
Does the recipient have mail delivery set to a PST file? On 07/25/03 14:39, "Steve Sorenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > We are having a strange problem with one user's (we'll call her "User > A") calendar and specifically with meeting requests. Here is the > scenario: > > 1) User A sends invitation to User B for a meeting. > 2) User B accepts invitation. > 3) A short while later (the time varies), User A will receive a meeting > cancellation of that meeting. > 4) A check of User B's "Sent Items" folder shows a cancellation even > though they never issued the cancellation. > > This has happened to User A at least a half-dozen times, and is not with > any specific recipient. Also, they have been able to send many other > successful meeting requests. This is on Exchange 2000 SP3 with Outlook > 2002 on an all Windows 2000 network. Also, this is not happening to > other users. > > Here's some of what I've tried so far: > > 1) I've checked the recipients' workstations for any auto-cancel rules > and found none. > 2) I've scanned the workstation for viruses and found none. > 3) Searched MS's knowledgebase and read anything I could find on > canceled meetings. > 4) Tried starting Outlook with the /celanfreebusy and /cleanreminders > switches. > > Any ideas? > > Thanks in advance for any suggestions! > > Steve > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=e > nglish > 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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange calendar problems - Exchange 2000, Outlook 2002
First off, if doesn't sound like an Exchange issue...it sounds like an Outlook settings issue. Second, have you checked User A's account for any delegates? Are there any other people that have full "User" priveleges on this mailbox? Have you checked the Outlook rules or the Tools/Options/E-mail Settings for either of these groups of people ? -Original Message- From: Steve Sorenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 12:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange calendar problems - Exchange 2000, Outlook 2002 Hello, We are having a strange problem with one user's (we'll call her "User A") calendar and specifically with meeting requests. Here is the scenario: 1) User A sends invitation to User B for a meeting. 2) User B accepts invitation. 3) A short while later (the time varies), User A will receive a meeting cancellation of that meeting. 4) A check of User B's "Sent Items" folder shows a cancellation even though they never issued the cancellation. This has happened to User A at least a half-dozen times, and is not with any specific recipient. Also, they have been able to send many other successful meeting requests. This is on Exchange 2000 SP3 with Outlook 2002 on an all Windows 2000 network. Also, this is not happening to other users. Here's some of what I've tried so far: 1) I've checked the recipients' workstations for any auto-cancel rules and found none. 2) I've scanned the workstation for viruses and found none. 3) Searched MS's knowledgebase and read anything I could find on canceled meetings. 4) Tried starting Outlook with the /celanfreebusy and /cleanreminders switches. Any ideas? Thanks in advance for any suggestions! Steve _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strange calendar problems - Exchange 2000, Outlook 2002
Hello, We are having a strange problem with one user's (we'll call her "User A") calendar and specifically with meeting requests. Here is the scenario: 1) User A sends invitation to User B for a meeting. 2) User B accepts invitation. 3) A short while later (the time varies), User A will receive a meeting cancellation of that meeting. 4) A check of User B's "Sent Items" folder shows a cancellation even though they never issued the cancellation. This has happened to User A at least a half-dozen times, and is not with any specific recipient. Also, they have been able to send many other successful meeting requests. This is on Exchange 2000 SP3 with Outlook 2002 on an all Windows 2000 network. Also, this is not happening to other users. Here's some of what I've tried so far: 1) I've checked the recipients' workstations for any auto-cancel rules and found none. 2) I've scanned the workstation for viruses and found none. 3) Searched MS's knowledgebase and read anything I could find on canceled meetings. 4) Tried starting Outlook with the /celanfreebusy and /cleanreminders switches. Any ideas? Thanks in advance for any suggestions! Steve _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange OWA 5.5 issue
Steven, thanks but we are on SP4 and according to the article this issue was fixed in SP1. I had double checked this to see if it was possible to delete a special folder (my Inbox), and I received the error "Unable to delete this special folder". Thanks, Amy -Original Message- From: Dickenson, Steven [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 9:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange OWA 5.5 issue Are you sure she's not just deleting her Inbox folder? Q215604. Steven --- Steven Dickenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Network Administrator The Key School, Annapolis Maryland -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 11:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange OWA 5.5 issue If you're on the latest service pack and can reproduce that, I would call Microsoft PSS. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lockmer, Amy Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 7:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange OWA 5.5 issue Hello all, I have a bizarre OWA 5.5 SP4 issue regarding hard deletes from the Inbox. A user that uses OWA 5.5 exclusively marks items for deletion from the Inbox, then selects the "Delete Marked Items" button. These items will be moved to her Deleted Items folder. When she does this, though the remaining mail items in the Inbox are hard deleted. They never touch the Deleted Items folder. I am able to login to the mailbox and use Recover Deleted Items to retrieve the mail for her. Normally I would think this was a something the user is doing, but since the problem happens in OWA and the mail never hits Deleted Items, it makes me think something else is happening. Also, this problem has happened to the same user more than once. Is it even possible to hard delete mail items using OWA? The version of IE is 5.0, would that have anything to do with it? I appreciate any feedback on this situation. Thanks, Amy _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange OWA 5.5 issue
OK, Thanks Ed. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange OWA 5.5 issue If you're on the latest service pack and can reproduce that, I would call Microsoft PSS. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lockmer, Amy Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 7:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange OWA 5.5 issue Hello all, I have a bizarre OWA 5.5 SP4 issue regarding hard deletes from the Inbox. A user that uses OWA 5.5 exclusively marks items for deletion from the Inbox, then selects the "Delete Marked Items" button. These items will be moved to her Deleted Items folder. When she does this, though the remaining mail items in the Inbox are hard deleted. They never touch the Deleted Items folder. I am able to login to the mailbox and use Recover Deleted Items to retrieve the mail for her. Normally I would think this was a something the user is doing, but since the problem happens in OWA and the mail never hits Deleted Items, it makes me think something else is happening. Also, this problem has happened to the same user more than once. Is it even possible to hard delete mail items using OWA? The version of IE is 5.0, would that have anything to do with it? I appreciate any feedback on this situation. Thanks, Amy _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange OWA 5.5 issue
Are you sure she's not just deleting her Inbox folder? Q215604. Steven --- Steven Dickenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Network Administrator The Key School, Annapolis Maryland -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 11:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange OWA 5.5 issue If you're on the latest service pack and can reproduce that, I would call Microsoft PSS. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lockmer, Amy Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 7:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange OWA 5.5 issue Hello all, I have a bizarre OWA 5.5 SP4 issue regarding hard deletes from the Inbox. A user that uses OWA 5.5 exclusively marks items for deletion from the Inbox, then selects the "Delete Marked Items" button. These items will be moved to her Deleted Items folder. When she does this, though the remaining mail items in the Inbox are hard deleted. They never touch the Deleted Items folder. I am able to login to the mailbox and use Recover Deleted Items to retrieve the mail for her. Normally I would think this was a something the user is doing, but since the problem happens in OWA and the mail never hits Deleted Items, it makes me think something else is happening. Also, this problem has happened to the same user more than once. Is it even possible to hard delete mail items using OWA? The version of IE is 5.0, would that have anything to do with it? I appreciate any feedback on this situation. Thanks, Amy _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange OWA 5.5 issue
If you're on the latest service pack and can reproduce that, I would call Microsoft PSS. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lockmer, Amy Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 7:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange OWA 5.5 issue Hello all, I have a bizarre OWA 5.5 SP4 issue regarding hard deletes from the Inbox. A user that uses OWA 5.5 exclusively marks items for deletion from the Inbox, then selects the "Delete Marked Items" button. These items will be moved to her Deleted Items folder. When she does this, though the remaining mail items in the Inbox are hard deleted. They never touch the Deleted Items folder. I am able to login to the mailbox and use Recover Deleted Items to retrieve the mail for her. Normally I would think this was a something the user is doing, but since the problem happens in OWA and the mail never hits Deleted Items, it makes me think something else is happening. Also, this problem has happened to the same user more than once. Is it even possible to hard delete mail items using OWA? The version of IE is 5.0, would that have anything to do with it? I appreciate any feedback on this situation. Thanks, Amy _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strange OWA 5.5 issue
Hello all, I have a bizarre OWA 5.5 SP4 issue regarding hard deletes from the Inbox. A user that uses OWA 5.5 exclusively marks items for deletion from the Inbox, then selects the "Delete Marked Items" button. These items will be moved to her Deleted Items folder. When she does this, though the remaining mail items in the Inbox are hard deleted. They never touch the Deleted Items folder. I am able to login to the mailbox and use Recover Deleted Items to retrieve the mail for her. Normally I would think this was a something the user is doing, but since the problem happens in OWA and the mail never hits Deleted Items, it makes me think something else is happening. Also, this problem has happened to the same user more than once. Is it even possible to hard delete mail items using OWA? The version of IE is 5.0, would that have anything to do with it? I appreciate any feedback on this situation. Thanks, Amy _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange OWA authentication issue
Yes, it worked for the first few weeks, and then for no reason I could discern, it stopped. Both servers are in the same site. The behavior is consistent on both; neither will authenticate each other's users, but they authenticate their own with no problems at all. There is nothing logged in the event log. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange OWA authentication issue
Did it ever work? Are both servers in the same site.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 2:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
I'm having an "issue" with my OWA authentications (kind of like a "feature"
in a product). I have two Exchange 5.5 SP4 servers, one running on WNT 4.0
SP6a, one running on W2K SP3. Both have all the Exchange post
SP-4 critical updates and hotfixes installed. Both are running OWA right
now, because for some reason, they abruptly stopped authenticating users on
each other - in other words, each will only authenticate users whose
mailboxes reside locally. They won't authenticate each other's users
("failed to get inbox"). I've fiddled with the directory permissions in
IIS, and right now, have all three authentication methods selected on both
servers, but it doesn't seem to affect this if I turn off NT authentication.
It's a colossal pain, since I have a firewall port open specifically for
OWA, and now that they're being buttheads, I have to have two ports open,
and I have to make sure users know which URL to use.
I realize that Exchange 2000 would probably help alleviate this, but we are
not ready for Active Directory, and probably will not be for some time yet.
Nor am I ready to single-handedly transition 2500 users right this minute.
So I'm looking for advice, but hopefully not along the lines of, "why don't
you just upgrade?" ;-)
Thanks for any help with this.
Geni
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strange OWA authentication issue
I'm having an "issue" with my OWA authentications (kind of like a
"feature" in a product). I have two Exchange 5.5 SP4 servers, one running
on WNT 4.0 SP6a, one running on W2K SP3. Both have all the Exchange post
SP-4 critical updates and hotfixes installed. Both are running OWA right
now, because for some reason, they abruptly stopped authenticating users
on each other - in other words, each will only authenticate users whose
mailboxes reside locally. They won't authenticate each other's users
("failed to get inbox"). I've fiddled with the directory permissions in
IIS, and right now, have all three authentication methods selected on both
servers, but it doesn't seem to affect this if I turn off NT
authentication. It's a colossal pain, since I have a firewall port open
specifically for OWA, and now that they're being buttheads, I have to have
two ports open, and I have to make sure users know which URL to use.
I realize that Exchange 2000 would probably help alleviate this, but we
are not ready for Active Directory, and probably will not be for some time
yet. Nor am I ready to single-handedly transition 2500 users right this
minute. So I'm looking for advice, but hopefully not along the lines of,
"why don't you just upgrade?" ;-)
Thanks for any help with this.
Geni
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Question
Ed, I appreciate the kind thoughts and straightforward attitude. Believe it or not I used your quote and then he backed himself into a corner and got defensive. Think the flag for follow up will make him happy though. Avs -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Just tell him no. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Smith-Rapaport Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 8:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange Question My boss asked me this morning. Is there any type of program or something that if you send someone an email, it will resend the email let's say every 20 minutes until they respond to you? He has not told me why he wants this and I did have the discussion about the behavoral issues etc. Avi We run exchange 2k and outlook client _ Avi Smith-Rapaport / MIS Director Star Supply Co. 1040 State Street * New Haven, CT 06511 Voice: 203.772.2240 * Fax: 203.865.7827 [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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Question
I suggested it first :) in my "Use the flag" message -Original Message- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question I think this is the best option thus far. Showed it to him and he seems pleased with it but still "can't" tell me what he will be using this for. Any way to have this automatically set like every time he sends a message it will automatically include a follow up prompt let's say every 20 minutes after the email is sent? I am beginning to believe my boss is a spammer. Avi -Original Message- From: Ben Schorr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Have the boss just set the reminder flag for "Follow up" on the e-mail with the date/time for 20 minutes hence. It should pop up if the other guy is using Outlook. -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4 Director of Information Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com > -Original Message- > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 8:49 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > I was explained that it is more for urgent email from certain people. > > Like if the owner emailed to my boss something that needed to > be done it would pop up in his mail box vs. someone sending > him an idiotic joke. To me it just seems like a crutch for > someone who isn't doing their work in keeping up with email > if that is part of their responsibilities. > > I am not to know the true reason behind this, for whatever > secretive reason, I know I know how ridiculous and how can I > give someone what I don't know they want, but alas, this is > where I am asking for advice for the gurus. You guys read > minds right? > > Avi > > > > -Original Message- > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:53 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > As with many things, it all comes back to Ed C.'s quote. > > The bigger question for Avi to pose to his boss is what is to > be accomplished here? Is it to track that a user is sitting > at his/her desk? To ensure that emails get read? To ensure > that tasks get done within 20 minutes? What is the business > goal that is to be accomplished? Mebbe there is a better > solution that can be offered instead of an email kludge. > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:46 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > I envision a solution like this: > > > > Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, > > whatever) > > where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered > recipient - that > > would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app > > sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a "flag" > (flat file, > > database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient. > > > > The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient > clicks on to > > acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag. > > > > Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every few > > minutes) checks for flags and resends reminders. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > > > > Alright... > > That didn't go over so well. > > He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. > > > > 2 willing participants. > > Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type of > > request from me so if I choose to I can send him an email > and mark it, > > respond in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes > to me then > > it will re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two > > willing participants definitely seems more like something, no? It > > seems to me like when he gets and email from certain people > he wants > > it to go to some reminder type of a system although the > sender is the > > person that would set the reminder intervals. confused? > > > > > > Avi > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent
RE: Strange Question
Just tell him no. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Smith-Rapaport Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 8:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange Question My boss asked me this morning. Is there any type of program or something that if you send someone an email, it will resend the email let's say every 20 minutes until they respond to you? He has not told me why he wants this and I did have the discussion about the behavoral issues etc. Avi We run exchange 2k and outlook client _ Avi Smith-Rapaport / MIS Director Star Supply Co. 1040 State Street * New Haven, CT 06511 Voice: 203.772.2240 * Fax: 203.865.7827 [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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Question
I think this is the best option thus far. Showed it to him and he seems pleased with it but still "can't" tell me what he will be using this for. Any way to have this automatically set like every time he sends a message it will automatically include a follow up prompt let's say every 20 minutes after the email is sent? I am beginning to believe my boss is a spammer. Avi -Original Message- From: Ben Schorr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Have the boss just set the reminder flag for "Follow up" on the e-mail with the date/time for 20 minutes hence. It should pop up if the other guy is using Outlook. -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4 Director of Information Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com > -Original Message- > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 8:49 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > I was explained that it is more for urgent email from certain people. > > Like if the owner emailed to my boss something that needed to > be done it would pop up in his mail box vs. someone sending > him an idiotic joke. To me it just seems like a crutch for > someone who isn't doing their work in keeping up with email > if that is part of their responsibilities. > > I am not to know the true reason behind this, for whatever > secretive reason, I know I know how ridiculous and how can I > give someone what I don't know they want, but alas, this is > where I am asking for advice for the gurus. You guys read > minds right? > > Avi > > > > -Original Message- > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:53 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > As with many things, it all comes back to Ed C.'s quote. > > The bigger question for Avi to pose to his boss is what is to > be accomplished here? Is it to track that a user is sitting > at his/her desk? To ensure that emails get read? To ensure > that tasks get done within 20 minutes? What is the business > goal that is to be accomplished? Mebbe there is a better > solution that can be offered instead of an email kludge. > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:46 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > I envision a solution like this: > > > > Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, > > whatever) > > where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered > recipient - that > > would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app > > sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a "flag" > (flat file, > > database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient. > > > > The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient > clicks on to > > acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag. > > > > Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every few > > minutes) checks for flags and resends reminders. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > > > > Alright... > > That didn't go over so well. > > He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. > > > > 2 willing participants. > > Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type of > > request from me so if I choose to I can send him an email > and mark it, > > respond in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes > to me then > > it will re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two > > willing participants definitely seems more like something, no? It > > seems to me like when he gets and email from certain people > he wants > > it to go to some reminder type of a system although the > sender is the > > person that would set the reminder intervals. confused? > > > > > > Avi > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > > > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splash
RE: Strange Question
David, So I take it this rule would be set on something like a sender or the importance set on an email? -Original Message- From: David J. Culliton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question If the explanation is correct - why not a rule that pops a dialog box on the desktop informing of the important email? -Original Message- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Thanks, but for whatever reason this is what he is on now. -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question If it's so urgent why is he sending it via e-mail. Why not just call? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Smith-Rapaport Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question I was explained that it is more for urgent email from certain people. Like if the owner emailed to my boss something that needed to be done it would pop up in his mail box vs. someone sending him an idiotic joke. To me it just seems like a crutch for someone who isn't doing their work in keeping up with email if that is part of their responsibilities. I am not to know the true reason behind this, for whatever secretive reason, I know I know how ridiculous and how can I give someone what I don't know they want, but alas, this is where I am asking for advice for the gurus. You guys read minds right? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question As with many things, it all comes back to Ed C.'s quote. The bigger question for Avi to pose to his boss is what is to be accomplished here? Is it to track that a user is sitting at his/her desk? To ensure that emails get read? To ensure that tasks get done within 20 minutes? What is the business goal that is to be accomplished? Mebbe there is a better solution that can be offered instead of an email kludge. > > -Original Message- > From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:46 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I envision a solution like this: > > Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, > whatever) > where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered recipient - that > would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app > sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a "flag" (flat file, > database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient. > > The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient clicks on to > acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag. > > Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every few > minutes) checks for flags and resends reminders. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > Alright... > That didn't go over so well. > He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. > > 2 willing participants. > Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type of > request from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, > respond in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then > it will re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two > willing participants definitely seems more like something, no? It > seems to me like when he gets and email from certain people he wants > it to go to some reminder type of a system although the sender is the > person that would set the reminder intervals. confused? > > > Avi > > > > -Original Message- > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:50 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions &
RE: Strange Question
Really? I'd just delete their account from the network if it was internal email, or I'd block their whole domain if it was external. We have rules here against that kind of abuse. > > -Original Message- > From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 11 June 2003 16:32 > To: Exchange Discussions > > There may be something like this, but I will tell you this. > If someone did that to me I would just set up a rule to > permanently delete all of their messages. > > Nate Couch > EDS Messaging > > > -- > > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport > > Reply To: Exchange Discussions > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:22 > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject:Strange Question > > > > My boss asked me this morning. > > > > Is there any type of program or something that if you send > someone an > > email, it will resend the email let's say every 20 minutes > > > > until they respond to you? > > > > He has not told me why he wants this and I did have the discussion > > about the behavoral issues etc. > > > > Avi > > > > > > We run exchange 2k and outlook client > > > > > > > > _ > > Avi Smith-Rapaport / MIS Director > > Star Supply Co. > > 1040 State Street * New Haven, CT 06511 > > Voice: 203.772.2240 * Fax: 203.865.7827 [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=exchange&text_mode > > =&la > > ng=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=exchange&t > ext_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Question
Make him carry a pager...wire it too him so it can shock him. write a rule that forwards e-mails from identified VIPS to the pager. thus he will know about it when it forwards to the pagerprovided you wire him correctly.. -Original Message- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question All of these are great points but I guess it comes back to why does he want this so I can give him what he wants. Will pry further. Avi -Original Message- From: David J. Culliton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question If the explanation is correct - why not a rule that pops a dialog box on the desktop informing of the important email? -Original Message- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Thanks, but for whatever reason this is what he is on now. -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question If it's so urgent why is he sending it via e-mail. Why not just call? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Smith-Rapaport Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question I was explained that it is more for urgent email from certain people. Like if the owner emailed to my boss something that needed to be done it would pop up in his mail box vs. someone sending him an idiotic joke. To me it just seems like a crutch for someone who isn't doing their work in keeping up with email if that is part of their responsibilities. I am not to know the true reason behind this, for whatever secretive reason, I know I know how ridiculous and how can I give someone what I don't know they want, but alas, this is where I am asking for advice for the gurus. You guys read minds right? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question As with many things, it all comes back to Ed C.'s quote. The bigger question for Avi to pose to his boss is what is to be accomplished here? Is it to track that a user is sitting at his/her desk? To ensure that emails get read? To ensure that tasks get done within 20 minutes? What is the business goal that is to be accomplished? Mebbe there is a better solution that can be offered instead of an email kludge. > > -Original Message- > From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:46 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I envision a solution like this: > > Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, > whatever) > where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered recipient - that > would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app > sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a "flag" (flat file, > database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient. > > The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient clicks on to > acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag. > > Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every few > minutes) checks for flags and resends reminders. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > Alright... > That didn't go over so well. > He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. > > 2 willing participants. > Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type of > request from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, > respond in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then > it will re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two > willing participants definitely seems more like something, no? It > seems to me like when he gets and email from certain people he wants > it to go to some reminder type of a system although the sender is the > person that would set the reminder intervals. confused? > > > Avi > > > > -Original Message- > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > &qu
RE: Strange Question
tell him you need to upgrade to E2K3 and OLK2K3. It has cool flags and rules for better message management. Then you could use OMI to alert him on his mobile device. You will need one as well ;-P - John Q Jr. From: "Bailey, Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Strange Question Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:48:44 -0700 You have any opening there? This sounds like the kind of boss I would *love* to work for. :-) - Matt > -Original Message- > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:49 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > I was explained that it is more for urgent email from certain people. > > Like if the owner emailed to my boss something that needed to > be done it would pop up in his mail box vs. someone sending > him an idiotic joke. To me it just seems like a crutch for > someone who isn't doing their work in keeping up with email > if that is part of their responsibilities. > > I am not to know the true reason behind this, for whatever > secretive reason, I know I know how ridiculous and how can I > give someone what I don't know they want, but alas, this is > where I am asking for advice for the gurus. You guys read > minds right? > > Avi > > > > -Original Message- > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:53 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > As with many things, it all comes back to Ed C.'s quote. > > The bigger question for Avi to pose to his boss is what is to > be accomplished > here? Is it to track that a user is sitting at his/her desk? > To ensure that > emails get read? To ensure that tasks get done within 20 > minutes? What is > the business goal that is to be accomplished? Mebbe there is a better > solution that can be offered instead of an email kludge. > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:46 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > I envision a solution like this: > > > > Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, > > whatever) > > where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered recipient - that > > would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app > > sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a "flag" (flat file, > > database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient. > > > > The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient clicks on to > > acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag. > > > > Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every > > few minutes) > > checks for flags and resends reminders. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > > > > Alright... > > That didn't go over so well. > > He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. > > > > 2 willing participants. > > Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type > > of request > > from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark > it, respond > > in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me > then it will > > re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two willing > > participants definitely seems more like something, no? It > seems to me > > like when he gets and email from certain people he wants it to go to > > some reminder type of a system although the sender is the > person that > > would set the reminder intervals. confused? > > > > > > Avi > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > > > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > >
RE: Strange Question
You have any opening there? This sounds like the kind of boss I would *love* to work for. :-) - Matt > -Original Message- > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:49 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > I was explained that it is more for urgent email from certain people. > > Like if the owner emailed to my boss something that needed to > be done it would pop up in his mail box vs. someone sending > him an idiotic joke. To me it just seems like a crutch for > someone who isn't doing their work in keeping up with email > if that is part of their responsibilities. > > I am not to know the true reason behind this, for whatever > secretive reason, I know I know how ridiculous and how can I > give someone what I don't know they want, but alas, this is > where I am asking for advice for the gurus. You guys read > minds right? > > Avi > > > > -Original Message- > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:53 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > As with many things, it all comes back to Ed C.'s quote. > > The bigger question for Avi to pose to his boss is what is to > be accomplished > here? Is it to track that a user is sitting at his/her desk? > To ensure that > emails get read? To ensure that tasks get done within 20 > minutes? What is > the business goal that is to be accomplished? Mebbe there is a better > solution that can be offered instead of an email kludge. > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:46 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > I envision a solution like this: > > > > Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, > > whatever) > > where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered recipient - that > > would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app > > sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a "flag" (flat file, > > database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient. > > > > The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient clicks on to > > acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag. > > > > Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every > > few minutes) > > checks for flags and resends reminders. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > > > > Alright... > > That didn't go over so well. > > He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. > > > > 2 willing participants. > > Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type > > of request > > from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark > it, respond > > in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me > then it will > > re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two willing > > participants definitely seems more like something, no? It > seems to me > > like when he gets and email from certain people he wants it to go to > > some reminder type of a system although the sender is the > person that > > would set the reminder intervals. confused? > > > > > > Avi > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > > > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:50 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > > Then tell him you will send him pages every 2 minutes, then > > > call on his cel phone every minute, then send him a fax every > > > 30 seconds until he rep
RE: Strange Question
Outlook 2003 will make this possible (as well as user specified sounds, etc.), current versions do not. He will have to wait. Best Regards, Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 15:26 To: Exchange Discussions Wasting...damn spell checker :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Hummert Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Tell him you asked an exchange list. They said it wasn't possible. Case close, it's not worth waiting the time on. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Smith-Rapaport Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question All of these are great points but I guess it comes back to why does he want this so I can give him what he wants. Will pry further. Avi -Original Message- From: David J. Culliton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question If the explanation is correct - why not a rule that pops a dialog box on the desktop informing of the important email? -Original Message- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Thanks, but for whatever reason this is what he is on now. -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question If it's so urgent why is he sending it via e-mail. Why not just call? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Smith-Rapaport Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question I was explained that it is more for urgent email from certain people. Like if the owner emailed to my boss something that needed to be done it would pop up in his mail box vs. someone sending him an idiotic joke. To me it just seems like a crutch for someone who isn't doing their work in keeping up with email if that is part of their responsibilities. I am not to know the true reason behind this, for whatever secretive reason, I know I know how ridiculous and how can I give someone what I don't know they want, but alas, this is where I am asking for advice for the gurus. You guys read minds right? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question As with many things, it all comes back to Ed C.'s quote. The bigger question for Avi to pose to his boss is what is to be accomplished here? Is it to track that a user is sitting at his/her desk? To ensure that emails get read? To ensure that tasks get done within 20 minutes? What is the business goal that is to be accomplished? Mebbe there is a better solution that can be offered instead of an email kludge. > > -Original Message- > From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:46 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I envision a solution like this: > > Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, > whatever) > where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered recipient - that > would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app > sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a "flag" (flat file, > database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient. > > The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient clicks on to > acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag. > > Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every few > minutes) checks for flags and resends reminders. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > Alright... > That didn't go over so well. > He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. > > 2 willing participants. > Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type of > request from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, > respond in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then > it will re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two > willing participants definitely seems more like something, no? It > seems to me like when he gets and email from certain people he wants > it to go to some reminder type of a system although the sender i
RE: Strange Question
Wasting...damn spell checker :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Hummert Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Tell him you asked an exchange list. They said it wasn't possible. Case close, it's not worth waiting the time on. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Smith-Rapaport Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question All of these are great points but I guess it comes back to why does he want this so I can give him what he wants. Will pry further. Avi -Original Message- From: David J. Culliton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question If the explanation is correct - why not a rule that pops a dialog box on the desktop informing of the important email? -Original Message- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Thanks, but for whatever reason this is what he is on now. -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question If it's so urgent why is he sending it via e-mail. Why not just call? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Smith-Rapaport Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question I was explained that it is more for urgent email from certain people. Like if the owner emailed to my boss something that needed to be done it would pop up in his mail box vs. someone sending him an idiotic joke. To me it just seems like a crutch for someone who isn't doing their work in keeping up with email if that is part of their responsibilities. I am not to know the true reason behind this, for whatever secretive reason, I know I know how ridiculous and how can I give someone what I don't know they want, but alas, this is where I am asking for advice for the gurus. You guys read minds right? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question As with many things, it all comes back to Ed C.'s quote. The bigger question for Avi to pose to his boss is what is to be accomplished here? Is it to track that a user is sitting at his/her desk? To ensure that emails get read? To ensure that tasks get done within 20 minutes? What is the business goal that is to be accomplished? Mebbe there is a better solution that can be offered instead of an email kludge. > > -Original Message- > From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:46 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I envision a solution like this: > > Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, > whatever) > where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered recipient - that > would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app > sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a "flag" (flat file, > database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient. > > The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient clicks on to > acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag. > > Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every few > minutes) checks for flags and resends reminders. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > Alright... > That didn't go over so well. > He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. > > 2 willing participants. > Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type of > request from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, > respond in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then > it will re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two > willing participants definitely seems more like something, no? It > seems to me like when he gets and email from certain people he wants > it to go to some reminder type of a system although the sender is the > person that would set the reminder intervals. confused? > > > Avi > > > > -Original Message- > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question &g
RE: Strange Question
Tell him you asked an exchange list. They said it wasn't possible. Case close, it's not worth waiting the time on. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Smith-Rapaport Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question All of these are great points but I guess it comes back to why does he want this so I can give him what he wants. Will pry further. Avi -Original Message- From: David J. Culliton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question If the explanation is correct - why not a rule that pops a dialog box on the desktop informing of the important email? -Original Message- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Thanks, but for whatever reason this is what he is on now. -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question If it's so urgent why is he sending it via e-mail. Why not just call? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Smith-Rapaport Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question I was explained that it is more for urgent email from certain people. Like if the owner emailed to my boss something that needed to be done it would pop up in his mail box vs. someone sending him an idiotic joke. To me it just seems like a crutch for someone who isn't doing their work in keeping up with email if that is part of their responsibilities. I am not to know the true reason behind this, for whatever secretive reason, I know I know how ridiculous and how can I give someone what I don't know they want, but alas, this is where I am asking for advice for the gurus. You guys read minds right? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question As with many things, it all comes back to Ed C.'s quote. The bigger question for Avi to pose to his boss is what is to be accomplished here? Is it to track that a user is sitting at his/her desk? To ensure that emails get read? To ensure that tasks get done within 20 minutes? What is the business goal that is to be accomplished? Mebbe there is a better solution that can be offered instead of an email kludge. > > -Original Message- > From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:46 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I envision a solution like this: > > Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, > whatever) > where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered recipient - that > would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app > sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a "flag" (flat file, > database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient. > > The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient clicks on to > acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag. > > Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every few > minutes) checks for flags and resends reminders. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > Alright... > That didn't go over so well. > He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. > > 2 willing participants. > Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type of > request from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, > respond in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then > it will re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two > willing participants definitely seems more like something, no? It > seems to me like when he gets and email from certain people he wants > it to go to some reminder type of a system although the sender is the > person that would set the reminder intervals. confused? > > > Avi > > > > -Original Message- > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?&
RE: Strange Question
All of these are great points but I guess it comes back to why does he want this so I can give him what he wants. Will pry further. Avi -Original Message- From: David J. Culliton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question If the explanation is correct - why not a rule that pops a dialog box on the desktop informing of the important email? -Original Message- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Thanks, but for whatever reason this is what he is on now. -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question If it's so urgent why is he sending it via e-mail. Why not just call? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Smith-Rapaport Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question I was explained that it is more for urgent email from certain people. Like if the owner emailed to my boss something that needed to be done it would pop up in his mail box vs. someone sending him an idiotic joke. To me it just seems like a crutch for someone who isn't doing their work in keeping up with email if that is part of their responsibilities. I am not to know the true reason behind this, for whatever secretive reason, I know I know how ridiculous and how can I give someone what I don't know they want, but alas, this is where I am asking for advice for the gurus. You guys read minds right? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question As with many things, it all comes back to Ed C.'s quote. The bigger question for Avi to pose to his boss is what is to be accomplished here? Is it to track that a user is sitting at his/her desk? To ensure that emails get read? To ensure that tasks get done within 20 minutes? What is the business goal that is to be accomplished? Mebbe there is a better solution that can be offered instead of an email kludge. > > -Original Message- > From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:46 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I envision a solution like this: > > Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, > whatever) > where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered recipient - that > would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app > sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a "flag" (flat file, > database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient. > > The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient clicks on to > acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag. > > Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every few > minutes) checks for flags and resends reminders. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > Alright... > That didn't go over so well. > He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. > > 2 willing participants. > Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type of > request from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, > respond in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then > it will re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two > willing participants definitely seems more like something, no? It > seems to me like when he gets and email from certain people he wants > it to go to some reminder type of a system although the sender is the > person that would set the reminder intervals. confused? > > > Avi > > > > -Original Message- > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:50 AM > > To:
RE: Strange Question
If the explanation is correct - why not a rule that pops a dialog box on the desktop informing of the important email? -Original Message- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Thanks, but for whatever reason this is what he is on now. -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question If it's so urgent why is he sending it via e-mail. Why not just call? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Smith-Rapaport Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question I was explained that it is more for urgent email from certain people. Like if the owner emailed to my boss something that needed to be done it would pop up in his mail box vs. someone sending him an idiotic joke. To me it just seems like a crutch for someone who isn't doing their work in keeping up with email if that is part of their responsibilities. I am not to know the true reason behind this, for whatever secretive reason, I know I know how ridiculous and how can I give someone what I don't know they want, but alas, this is where I am asking for advice for the gurus. You guys read minds right? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question As with many things, it all comes back to Ed C.'s quote. The bigger question for Avi to pose to his boss is what is to be accomplished here? Is it to track that a user is sitting at his/her desk? To ensure that emails get read? To ensure that tasks get done within 20 minutes? What is the business goal that is to be accomplished? Mebbe there is a better solution that can be offered instead of an email kludge. > > -Original Message- > From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:46 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I envision a solution like this: > > Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, > whatever) > where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered recipient - that > would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app > sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a "flag" (flat file, > database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient. > > The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient clicks on to > acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag. > > Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every few > minutes) checks for flags and resends reminders. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > Alright... > That didn't go over so well. > He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. > > 2 willing participants. > Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type of > request from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, > respond in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then > it will re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two > willing participants definitely seems more like something, no? It > seems to me like when he gets and email from certain people he wants > it to go to some reminder type of a system although the sender is the > person that would set the reminder intervals. confused? > > > Avi > > > > -Original Message- > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:50 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Then tell him you will send him pages every 2 minutes, then call on > > his cel phone every minute, then send him a fax every 30 seconds > > until he replies about you getting a raise. > > > > > > -----Original Message- > > From
RE: Strange Question
Have the boss just set the reminder flag for "Follow up" on the e-mail with the date/time for 20 minutes hence. It should pop up if the other guy is using Outlook. -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4 Director of Information Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com > -Original Message- > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 8:49 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > I was explained that it is more for urgent email from certain people. > > Like if the owner emailed to my boss something that needed to > be done it would pop up in his mail box vs. someone sending > him an idiotic joke. To me it just seems like a crutch for > someone who isn't doing their work in keeping up with email > if that is part of their responsibilities. > > I am not to know the true reason behind this, for whatever > secretive reason, I know I know how ridiculous and how can I > give someone what I don't know they want, but alas, this is > where I am asking for advice for the gurus. You guys read > minds right? > > Avi > > > > -Original Message- > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:53 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > As with many things, it all comes back to Ed C.'s quote. > > The bigger question for Avi to pose to his boss is what is to > be accomplished here? Is it to track that a user is sitting > at his/her desk? To ensure that emails get read? To ensure > that tasks get done within 20 minutes? What is the business > goal that is to be accomplished? Mebbe there is a better > solution that can be offered instead of an email kludge. > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:46 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > I envision a solution like this: > > > > Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, > > whatever) > > where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered > recipient - that > > would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app > > sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a "flag" > (flat file, > > database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient. > > > > The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient > clicks on to > > acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag. > > > > Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every few > > minutes) checks for flags and resends reminders. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > > > > Alright... > > That didn't go over so well. > > He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. > > > > 2 willing participants. > > Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type of > > request from me so if I choose to I can send him an email > and mark it, > > respond in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes > to me then > > it will re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two > > willing participants definitely seems more like something, no? It > > seems to me like when he gets and email from certain people > he wants > > it to go to some reminder type of a system although the > sender is the > > person that would set the reminder intervals. confused? > > > > > > Avi > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > > > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:50 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > &
RE: Strange Question
Thanks, but for whatever reason this is what he is on now. -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question If it's so urgent why is he sending it via e-mail. Why not just call? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Smith-Rapaport Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question I was explained that it is more for urgent email from certain people. Like if the owner emailed to my boss something that needed to be done it would pop up in his mail box vs. someone sending him an idiotic joke. To me it just seems like a crutch for someone who isn't doing their work in keeping up with email if that is part of their responsibilities. I am not to know the true reason behind this, for whatever secretive reason, I know I know how ridiculous and how can I give someone what I don't know they want, but alas, this is where I am asking for advice for the gurus. You guys read minds right? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question As with many things, it all comes back to Ed C.'s quote. The bigger question for Avi to pose to his boss is what is to be accomplished here? Is it to track that a user is sitting at his/her desk? To ensure that emails get read? To ensure that tasks get done within 20 minutes? What is the business goal that is to be accomplished? Mebbe there is a better solution that can be offered instead of an email kludge. > > -Original Message- > From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:46 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I envision a solution like this: > > Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, > whatever) > where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered recipient - that > would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app > sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a "flag" (flat file, > database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient. > > The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient clicks on to > acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag. > > Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every > few minutes) > checks for flags and resends reminders. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > Alright... > That didn't go over so well. > He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. > > 2 willing participants. > Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type > of request > from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, respond > in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then it will > re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two willing > participants definitely seems more like something, no? It seems to me > like when he gets and email from certain people he wants it to go to > some reminder type of a system although the sender is the person that > would set the reminder intervals. confused? > > > Avi > > > > -Original Message- > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:50 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Then tell him you will send him pages every 2 minutes, then call on > > his cel phone every minute, then send him a fax every 30 seconds > > until he replies about you getting a raise. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:45 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > > > > Lol. Good answer Andy. > > > > -Original Message----- > > Fro
RE: Strange Question
If it's so urgent why is he sending it via e-mail. Why not just call? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Smith-Rapaport Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question I was explained that it is more for urgent email from certain people. Like if the owner emailed to my boss something that needed to be done it would pop up in his mail box vs. someone sending him an idiotic joke. To me it just seems like a crutch for someone who isn't doing their work in keeping up with email if that is part of their responsibilities. I am not to know the true reason behind this, for whatever secretive reason, I know I know how ridiculous and how can I give someone what I don't know they want, but alas, this is where I am asking for advice for the gurus. You guys read minds right? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question As with many things, it all comes back to Ed C.'s quote. The bigger question for Avi to pose to his boss is what is to be accomplished here? Is it to track that a user is sitting at his/her desk? To ensure that emails get read? To ensure that tasks get done within 20 minutes? What is the business goal that is to be accomplished? Mebbe there is a better solution that can be offered instead of an email kludge. > > -Original Message- > From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:46 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I envision a solution like this: > > Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, > whatever) > where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered recipient - that > would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app > sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a "flag" (flat file, > database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient. > > The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient clicks on to > acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag. > > Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every > few minutes) > checks for flags and resends reminders. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > Alright... > That didn't go over so well. > He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. > > 2 willing participants. > Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type > of request > from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, respond > in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then it will > re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two willing > participants definitely seems more like something, no? It seems to me > like when he gets and email from certain people he wants it to go to > some reminder type of a system although the sender is the person that > would set the reminder intervals. confused? > > > Avi > > > > -Original Message- > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:50 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Then tell him you will send him pages every 2 minutes, then call on > > his cel phone every minute, then send him a fax every 30 seconds > > until he replies about you getting a raise. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:45 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > > > > Lol. Good answer Andy. > > > > -Original Message----- > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:42 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: Strange Question > > > > > > Tell your boss you will call him on the phone every
RE: Strange Question
I was explained that it is more for urgent email from certain people. Like if the owner emailed to my boss something that needed to be done it would pop up in his mail box vs. someone sending him an idiotic joke. To me it just seems like a crutch for someone who isn't doing their work in keeping up with email if that is part of their responsibilities. I am not to know the true reason behind this, for whatever secretive reason, I know I know how ridiculous and how can I give someone what I don't know they want, but alas, this is where I am asking for advice for the gurus. You guys read minds right? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question As with many things, it all comes back to Ed C.'s quote. The bigger question for Avi to pose to his boss is what is to be accomplished here? Is it to track that a user is sitting at his/her desk? To ensure that emails get read? To ensure that tasks get done within 20 minutes? What is the business goal that is to be accomplished? Mebbe there is a better solution that can be offered instead of an email kludge. > > -Original Message- > From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:46 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I envision a solution like this: > > Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, > whatever) > where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered recipient - that > would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app > sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a "flag" (flat file, > database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient. > > The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient clicks on to > acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag. > > Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every > few minutes) > checks for flags and resends reminders. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > Alright... > That didn't go over so well. > He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. > > 2 willing participants. > Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type > of request > from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, respond > in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then it will > re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two willing > participants definitely seems more like something, no? It seems to me > like when he gets and email from certain people he wants it to go to > some reminder type of a system although the sender is the person that > would set the reminder intervals. confused? > > > Avi > > > > -Original Message- > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:50 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Then tell him you will send him pages every 2 minutes, then > > call on his cel phone every minute, then send him a fax every > > 30 seconds until he replies about you getting a raise. > > > > > > -----Original Message- > > From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:45 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > > > > Lol. Good answer Andy. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:42 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: Strange Question > > > > > > Tell your boss you will call him on the phone every 5 minutes > > until you get > > answer. > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Avi Smith-Rapaport" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday,
RE: Strange Question
Use the flag -Original Message- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Alright... That didn't go over so well. He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. 2 willing participants. Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type of request from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, respond in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then it will re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two willing participants definitely seems more like something, no? It seems to me like when he gets and email from certain people he wants it to go to some reminder type of a system although the sender is the person that would set the reminder intervals. confused? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > -Original Message- > From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > Then tell him you will send him pages every 2 minutes, then > call on his cel phone every minute, then send him a fax every > 30 seconds until he replies about you getting a raise. > > > -Original Message- > From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:45 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > Lol. Good answer Andy. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:42 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: Strange Question > > > Tell your boss you will call him on the phone every 5 minutes > until you get > answer. > > - Original Message - > From: "Avi Smith-Rapaport" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:22 AM > Subject: Strange Question > > > My boss asked me this morning. > > Is there any type of program or something that if you send > someone an email, > it will resend the email let's say every 20 minutes > > until they respond to you? > > He has not told me why he wants this and I did have the > discussion about the > behavoral issues etc. > > Avi > > > We run exchange 2k and outlook client > > > > _ > Avi Smith-Rapaport / MIS Director > Star Supply Co. > 1040 State Street * New Haven, CT 06511 > Voice: 203.772.2240 * Fax: 203.865.7827 > [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=exchange&t > ext_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=exchange&t > ext_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=exchange&t > ext_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=exchange&t > ext_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-b
RE: Strange Question
The fact that the two parties consented to this. Please don't get me wrong, I am completely in agreement with what the Great Crowley says about behavioral issues and all of that, just following up for the boss. Avi -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question What's going to stop them from right clicking on the message -> Junk E-mail -> Add to Junk Senders? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Smith-Rapaport Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 9:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Alright... That didn't go over so well. He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. 2 willing participants. Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type of request from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, respond in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then it will re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two willing participants definitely seems more like something, no? It seems to me like when he gets and email from certain people he wants it to go to some reminder type of a system although the sender is the person that would set the reminder intervals. confused? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > -Original Message- > From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > Then tell him you will send him pages every 2 minutes, then > call on his cel phone every minute, then send him a fax every > 30 seconds until he replies about you getting a raise. > > > -Original Message- > From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:45 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > Lol. Good answer Andy. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:42 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: Strange Question > > > Tell your boss you will call him on the phone every 5 minutes > until you get > answer. > > - Original Message - > From: "Avi Smith-Rapaport" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:22 AM > Subject: Strange Question > > > My boss asked me this morning. > > Is there any type of program or something that if you send > someone an email, > it will resend the email let's say every 20 minutes > > until they respond to you? > > He has not told me why he wants this and I did have the > discussion about the > behavoral issues etc. > > Avi > > > We run exchange 2k and outlook client > > > > _ > Avi Smith-Rapaport / MIS Director > Star Supply Co. > 1040 State Street * New Haven, CT 06511 > Voice: 203.772.2240 * Fax: 203.865.7827 > [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=exchange&t > ext_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=exchange&t > ext_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=exchange&t > ext_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List post
RE: Strange Question
As with many things, it all comes back to Ed C.'s quote. The bigger question for Avi to pose to his boss is what is to be accomplished here? Is it to track that a user is sitting at his/her desk? To ensure that emails get read? To ensure that tasks get done within 20 minutes? What is the business goal that is to be accomplished? Mebbe there is a better solution that can be offered instead of an email kludge. > > -Original Message- > From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:46 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I envision a solution like this: > > Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, > whatever) > where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered recipient - that > would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app > sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a "flag" (flat file, > database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient. > > The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient clicks on to > acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag. > > Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every > few minutes) > checks for flags and resends reminders. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > Alright... > That didn't go over so well. > He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. > > 2 willing participants. > Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type > of request > from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, respond > in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then it will > re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two willing > participants definitely seems more like something, no? It seems to me > like when he gets and email from certain people he wants it to go to > some reminder type of a system although the sender is the person that > would set the reminder intervals. confused? > > > Avi > > > > -Original Message- > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:50 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Then tell him you will send him pages every 2 minutes, then > > call on his cel phone every minute, then send him a fax every > > 30 seconds until he replies about you getting a raise. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:45 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > > > > Lol. Good answer Andy. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:42 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: Strange Question > > > > > > Tell your boss you will call him on the phone every 5 minutes > > until you get > > answer. > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Avi Smith-Rapaport" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:22 AM > > Subject: Strange Question > > > > > > My boss asked me this morning. > > > > Is there any type of program or something that if you send > > someone an email, > > it will resend the email let's say every 20 minutes > > > > until they respond to you? > > > > He has not told me why he wants this and I did have the > > discussion about the > > behavoral issues etc. > > > > Avi > > > > > > We run exchange 2k and outlook client > > > > > > > > _ > > Avi Smith-Rapaport / MIS Director > > Star Supply Co. > > 1040 State Street * New Haven, CT 06511 > >
Re: Strange Question
After 2 reminders the custom application written by the user automatically sends resume of user to monsterboard.com ** Please prefix your subject header with BETA for posts dealing with Exchange 2003 ** -- Martin Tuip MVP Exchange Exchange 2000 List owner www.exchange-mail.org www.sharepointserver.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- - Original Message - From: "Ken Cornetet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 6:46 PM Subject: RE: Strange Question I envision a solution like this: Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, whatever) where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered recipient - that would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a "flag" (flat file, database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient. The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient clicks on to acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag. Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every few minutes) checks for flags and resends reminders. -Original Message- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Alright... That didn't go over so well. He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. 2 willing participants. Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type of request from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, respond in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then it will re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two willing participants definitely seems more like something, no? It seems to me like when he gets and email from certain people he wants it to go to some reminder type of a system although the sender is the person that would set the reminder intervals. confused? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > -Original Message- > From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > Then tell him you will send him pages every 2 minutes, then > call on his cel phone every minute, then send him a fax every > 30 seconds until he replies about you getting a raise. > > > -Original Message- > From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:45 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > Lol. Good answer Andy. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:42 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: Strange Question > > > Tell your boss you will call him on the phone every 5 minutes > until you get > answer. > > - Original Message - > From: "Avi Smith-Rapaport" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:22 AM > Subject: Strange Question > > > My boss asked me this morning. > > Is there any type of program or something that if you send > someone an email, > it will resend the email let's say every 20 minutes > > until they respond to you? > > He has not told me why he wants this and I did have the > discussion about the > behavoral issues etc. > > Avi > > > We run exchange 2k and outlook client > > > > _ > Avi Smith-Rapaport / MIS Director > Star Supply Co. > 1040 State Street * New Haven, CT 06511 > Voice: 203.772.2240 * Fax: 203.865.7827 > [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=exchange&t > ext_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.sparkl
RE: Strange Question
What's going to stop them from right clicking on the message -> Junk E-mail -> Add to Junk Senders? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Smith-Rapaport Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 9:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Alright... That didn't go over so well. He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. 2 willing participants. Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type of request from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, respond in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then it will re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two willing participants definitely seems more like something, no? It seems to me like when he gets and email from certain people he wants it to go to some reminder type of a system although the sender is the person that would set the reminder intervals. confused? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > -Original Message- > From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > Then tell him you will send him pages every 2 minutes, then > call on his cel phone every minute, then send him a fax every > 30 seconds until he replies about you getting a raise. > > > -Original Message- > From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:45 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > Lol. Good answer Andy. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:42 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: Strange Question > > > Tell your boss you will call him on the phone every 5 minutes > until you get > answer. > > - Original Message - > From: "Avi Smith-Rapaport" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:22 AM > Subject: Strange Question > > > My boss asked me this morning. > > Is there any type of program or something that if you send > someone an email, > it will resend the email let's say every 20 minutes > > until they respond to you? > > He has not told me why he wants this and I did have the > discussion about the > behavoral issues etc. > > Avi > > > We run exchange 2k and outlook client > > > > _ > Avi Smith-Rapaport / MIS Director > Star Supply Co. > 1040 State Street * New Haven, CT 06511 > Voice: 203.772.2240 * Fax: 203.865.7827 > [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=exchange&t > ext_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=exchange&t > ext_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=exchange&t > ext_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=exchange&t > ext_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://w
RE: Strange Question
I envision a solution like this: Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, whatever) where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered recipient - that would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a "flag" (flat file, database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient. The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient clicks on to acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag. Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every few minutes) checks for flags and resends reminders. -Original Message- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Alright... That didn't go over so well. He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. 2 willing participants. Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type of request from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, respond in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then it will re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two willing participants definitely seems more like something, no? It seems to me like when he gets and email from certain people he wants it to go to some reminder type of a system although the sender is the person that would set the reminder intervals. confused? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > -Original Message- > From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > Then tell him you will send him pages every 2 minutes, then > call on his cel phone every minute, then send him a fax every > 30 seconds until he replies about you getting a raise. > > > -Original Message- > From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:45 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > Lol. Good answer Andy. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:42 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: Strange Question > > > Tell your boss you will call him on the phone every 5 minutes > until you get > answer. > > - Original Message - > From: "Avi Smith-Rapaport" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:22 AM > Subject: Strange Question > > > My boss asked me this morning. > > Is there any type of program or something that if you send > someone an email, > it will resend the email let's say every 20 minutes > > until they respond to you? > > He has not told me why he wants this and I did have the > discussion about the > behavoral issues etc. > > Avi > > > We run exchange 2k and outlook client > > > > _ > Avi Smith-Rapaport / MIS Director > Star Supply Co. > 1040 State Street * New Haven, CT 06511 > Voice: 203.772.2240 * Fax: 203.865.7827 > [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=exchange&t > ext_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=exchange&t > ext_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=exchange&t > ext_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROT
RE: Strange Question
Can you clarify if it will be internal "willing recipients" or external "willing recipients"? > > -Original Message- > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:33 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > > Alright... > That didn't go over so well. > He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. > > 2 willing participants. > Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type > of request from me so if I choose to I can send him an email > and mark it, respond in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in > 20 minutes to me then it will re-email, or pop up a window on > his pc whatever. > The two willing participants definitely seems more like something, no? > It seems to me like when he gets and email from certain > people he wants it to go to some reminder type of a system > although the sender is the person that would set the reminder > intervals. > confused? > > > Avi > > > > -Original Message- > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:50 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Then tell him you will send him pages every 2 minutes, then > > call on his cel phone every minute, then send him a fax every > > 30 seconds until he replies about you getting a raise. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:45 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > > > > Lol. Good answer Andy. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:42 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: Strange Question > > > > > > Tell your boss you will call him on the phone every 5 minutes > > until you get > > answer. > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Avi Smith-Rapaport" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:22 AM > > Subject: Strange Question > > > > > > My boss asked me this morning. > > > > Is there any type of program or something that if you send > > someone an email, > > it will resend the email let's say every 20 minutes > > > > until they respond to you? > > > > He has not told me why he wants this and I did have the > > discussion about the > > behavoral issues etc. > > > > Avi > > > > > > We run exchange 2k and outlook client > > > > > > > > _ > > Avi Smith-Rapaport / MIS Director > > Star Supply Co. > > 1040 State Street * New Haven, CT 06511 > > Voice: 203.772.2240 * Fax: 203.865.7827 > > [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=exchange&t > > ext_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=exchange&t > > ext_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=exchange
RE: Strange Question
Just let him know that you'll probably be blacklisted if he goes forward with this. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Smith-Rapaport Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 9:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Alright... That didn't go over so well. He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. 2 willing participants. Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type of request from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, respond in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then it will re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two willing participants definitely seems more like something, no? It seems to me like when he gets and email from certain people he wants it to go to some reminder type of a system although the sender is the person that would set the reminder intervals. confused? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > -Original Message- > From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > Then tell him you will send him pages every 2 minutes, then > call on his cel phone every minute, then send him a fax every > 30 seconds until he replies about you getting a raise. > > > -Original Message- > From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:45 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > Lol. Good answer Andy. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:42 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: Strange Question > > > Tell your boss you will call him on the phone every 5 minutes > until you get > answer. > > - Original Message - > From: "Avi Smith-Rapaport" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:22 AM > Subject: Strange Question > > > My boss asked me this morning. > > Is there any type of program or something that if you send > someone an email, > it will resend the email let's say every 20 minutes > > until they respond to you? > > He has not told me why he wants this and I did have the > discussion about the > behavoral issues etc. > > Avi > > > We run exchange 2k and outlook client > > > > _ > Avi Smith-Rapaport / MIS Director > Star Supply Co. > 1040 State Street * New Haven, CT 06511 > Voice: 203.772.2240 * Fax: 203.865.7827 > [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=exchange&t > ext_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=exchange&t > ext_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=exchange&t > ext_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=exchange&t > ext_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_fa
Re: Strange Question
Hells Bells. Sign them all up for AOL. - Original Message - From: "Avi Smith-Rapaport" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:32 PM Subject: RE: Strange Question Alright... That didn't go over so well. He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. 2 willing participants. Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type of request from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, respond in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then it will re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two willing participants definitely seems more like something, no? It seems to me like when he gets and email from certain people he wants it to go to some reminder type of a system although the sender is the person that would set the reminder intervals. confused? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" "Can we go to mount Splashmore?" > > -Original Message- > From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > Then tell him you will send him pages every 2 minutes, then > call on his cel phone every minute, then send him a fax every > 30 seconds until he replies about you getting a raise. > > > -Original Message- > From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:45 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Strange Question > > > Lol. Good answer Andy. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:42 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: Strange Question > > > Tell your boss you will call him on the phone every 5 minutes > until you get > answer. > > - Original Message - > From: "Avi Smith-Rapaport" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:22 AM > Subject: Strange Question > > > My boss asked me this morning. > > Is there any type of program or something that if you send > someone an email, > it will resend the email let's say every 20 minutes > > until they respond to you? > > He has not told me why he wants this and I did have the > discussion about the > behavoral issues etc. > > Avi > > > We run exchange 2k and outlook client > > > > _ > Avi Smith-Rapaport / MIS Director > Star Supply Co. > 1040 State Street * New Haven, CT 06511 > Voice: 203.772.2240 * Fax: 203.865.7827 > [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=exchange&t > ext_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=exchange&t > ext_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=exchange&t > ext_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=exchange&t > ext_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:
