Mimecast Blog - Latest Comments

Re: Email archiving: To delete or not to delete?

Justin Pirie — Fri, 11 May 2012 19:37:09 -0000

Excellent! Glad you liked it. What really stuck out to you?

Re: Email archiving: To delete or not to delete?

Email archiving — Fri, 11 May 2012 14:44:45 -0000

Very informative post indeed! I randomly got to this blog from google and i really learned something here unlike many other blogs i have visited before.

Re: Placing Your Trust in the Cloud

Justin Pirie — Thu, 03 May 2012 14:20:39 -0000

I'm really glad you've found that. What made you take the jump in the end?

Re: Placing Your Trust in the Cloud

Email archiving — Thu, 03 May 2012 12:20:03 -0000

We have taken the leap of faith as it were and adopted cloud technology and i can say only good things about it. It has improved our buisiness in more ways then one and cut costs which means more money for other things.

Re: The #MIME20 Twinterview Round Up

email archiving — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:41:19 -0000

Great roundup. Im happy someone took the time to make one. Thank you for posting!

Re: The History of MIME Infographic

Justin Pirie — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:00:34 -0000

Thanks!

Re: The History of MIME Infographic

email archiving system — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:37:07 -0000

Great post! Very informative!

Re: Delivering Software at Mimecast- like Facebook?

Justin Pirie — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:51:10 -0000

Thanks! What did you like best?

Re: Guest Post: Migrating between email servers- SMTP Namespace Sharing (Part 2)

Erndog5800 — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:02:58 -0000

I'm a little confused by this. On the Exchange 2010 Configuration side, how do you distinguish between the SMTP connector to the outside world and the SMTP connector to the 2003 server, or any server you want to send unresolved recipients to? Aren't the two SMTP connectors essentially identical, with the exception of the smarthost? There's nothing to say, "if it is an unresolved recipient, use connector B instead of Connector A"..

Re: Delivering Software at Mimecast- like Facebook?

email archiving solution — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 09:54:22 -0000

Great post! I really like your opinions. Some great pointers in here. Thank you!

Re: 2012 – Year of BYOD. But how do you ensure everyone is happy?

email archiving solution — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 07:57:17 -0000

Great post! Very entertaining and informative !

Re: Microsoft Exchange Server: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow

groupwise email archiving — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 10:32:30 -0000

Great overview of all transitions. Very informative post !

Re: Email archiving: To delete or not to delete?

hipaa email compliance — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:46:22 -0000

Great post. Very informative. Reading your blog really helped me learn about email archiving.

Re: Get Full Control over your Exchange remote PowerShell session

Decato — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:34:25 -0000

Very nice but ...

PS > $identity = 'Mailbox Database 0311695863'
PS > $sb = {(Get-MailboxDatabase -Status –Identity $identity).DatabaseSize.ToBytes()}

This does not seem to work as $identity does not get properly parsed.
If I type the string in $sb directly it works, but using $Identity does not.

So how do I get a local variable to remote session?

Re: Vint Cerf is Too Modest; Internet Access is a Human Right

Oneill3 — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:53:35 -0000

Sorry Nathaniel, I think Vint is right on the money with this one.

Re: Vint Cerf is Too Modest; Internet Access is a Human Right

Vint — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 05:47:54 -0000

Nathaniel, I appreciate the intense response, but i still think there is an issue here that you may not have considered. I am not devaluing the Internet by any means. What I am saying however, is that we should not enshrine a particular technology as a human right. The right to communicate (speak, hear, write, read) is vital. Any particular way to do that is an enabler. You mention clothing. You would presumably agree that, for example, a formal black tie outfit is not, in itself, a human right. It IS an article of clothing, and clothing is, by your post, a human right. But what we care about is the clothing, not a particular garment, label, etc. The Internet is one of the most recent in a long skein of inventions that have enhanced our ability to share our thoughts and ideas. It is a remarkably malleable medium. But if, someday, something new comes along that is even better, will we cling to the Internet as a human right or turn to the new thing as a better enabler of the right to communicate?

By the way, the 32 bit address space was selected in 1973 when Bob Kahn and I wrote our first paper on the design of TCP. That allowed for 4.3 billion addresses. Computing was realized in the form of large scale time sharing systems, each one serving hundreds to thousands of users. At the time, it seemed like an amble address space FOR AN EXPERIMENT. By the early 1990s, it was well recognized that the space would ultimately be exhausted as the Internet became available to the public and effort to design its replacement began in the Internet Engineering Task Force. That resulted in a new standard format, IPv6 (version 6).

Re: Vint Cerf is Too Modest; Internet Access is a Human Right

Michael McClennen — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:55:38 -0000

Bravo, Nathaniel!

The only thing I'd add to this is to emphasize that as the technological level of our society changes over time, what constitutes a "human right" changes too.

You discussed this briefly in the case of clothing and shelter, but another example could be government regulation of printing presses. In 16th century England, for example, the government granted monopoly status to a small group of printing-press owners, effectively granting them the authority to decide what would and would not be printed. Although this action had many critics, at least it could be said that anyone who wanted to "get the word out" had many alternative channels to do so-- town criers, handwritten manuscripts, etc., all of which were at the time well-established as means of communication.

When the English government tried to impose much less stringent rules on the American colonies in the 18th century (the Stamp act, which was essentially a tax on printed material) this was decried as a violation of the fundamental human right of free speech. After 200 years of technological progress, the printing press had eclipsed all other means of mass dissemination of ideas and the others had faded into obscurity.

In a very similar way, nobody would have considered Internet access to be a fundamental right in 1995-- there were many other ways of getting one's message out. By now, other channels are slowly fading into obscurity and practical exercise of the right to freely communicate one's ideas to a mass audience requires uncensored access to the Internet.

Re: Exchange – Removing Illegal Alias Characters using PowerShell

Zolon — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:46:36 -0000

Will this work on DistributionGroups as well?

Re: Queue reporting in Exchange 2010 – Guest Post by Jaap Wesselius

Jaap Wesselius — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 05:19:36 -0000

Hi Ant,

I don't have such a script available, but it is an interesting idea. Can you elaborate a bit more on what you want to achieve and I'll see what I can do.

Thanks,
Jaap

Re: Queue reporting in Exchange 2010 – Guest Post by Jaap Wesselius

Ant Benedict — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 02:32:47 -0000

Hi Jaap,

Do you have any script similar to this but instead, it will look on the messages tab and send a notification if there is a message that is more than 10mb for example?

Re: Queue reporting in Exchange 2010 – Guest Post by Jaap Wesselius

Keith — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:42:23 -0000

Great Script - Love it

I did make the mod below to only report queues over a 0 and not the ShadowRedundancy.

$Queue = Get-ExchangeServer | where {$_.isHubTransportServer -eq $true} | Get-Queue | where {$_.Messagecount -gt 0 -and $_.DeliveryType -ne "ShadowRedundancy" } | Select Identity,DeliveryType,Status,MessageCount,NextHopDomain, LastRetryTime,NextRetryTime | ConvertTo-HTML -head $BodyStyle

Re: Open relay in Microsoft Exchange 2010 (and 2007)

Barry Gill — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:38:33 -0000

Hello Vman1 - yes, this has to be run per connector, though you could script that fairly simply to call the connector name...

Re: Open relay in Microsoft Exchange 2010 (and 2007)

Vman1 — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:11:06 -0000

What do you do if you have 4 or 5 connectors setup?
Do you have to run it on each one?

Re: Open relay in Microsoft Exchange 2010 (and 2007)

Nicolas Blank — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 01:59:23 -0000

Hi Andrew, understand your frustration.
No,
Receive Connectors by default do not allow anonymous submission, and
reciprocally, Send Connectors send anonymously by default, without requiring
authentication.

Re: Open relay in Microsoft Exchange 2010 (and 2007)

Nicolas Blank — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 01:58:50 -0000

No,
Receive Connectors by default do not allow anonymous submission, and
reciprocally, Send connectors send anonymously by default, without requiring
authentication.