powershell uses UTC with an offset for the locale; however, you can remove the offeset if you wish and retrieve UTC only; you can even apply unix-style formatting if you want.
Powershell is pretty friggin awesome once you scratch the surface...
I think you've muddled the MAPI client and MAPI protocol together, so i'll clarify for you:
MAPI as a client access method (ie the MAPI protocol) is built-in, and turned on by default. For Outlook clients who are on the same network as your Mailbox server(s), this is the default connection method.
The MAPI client bits, however, are not included in Exchange server anymore. Really the only thing that i've found that this affects is the ability to export mail to a PST when working directly on a mailbox server. It's been replaced by a number of powershell commands (export-mailbox, import-mailbox), and can still be done on workstations with Outlook installed (because the MAPI client bits are part of Outlook).
Exchange isn't an applications platform, and isn't billed as such. It's Groupware, period, full stop.
That's not to say that Exchange 5.5 wasn't billed as an apps platform, but that was 10 years ago. Things change, and your anecdote from 1998 can't possibly be expected to reflect the current state of affairs.
For what it's worth, Exchange can interact with external applications through the use of the Exchange Web Services API, which is a little difficult to grasp at times, but it's well documented on MSDN. We've developed several custom applications around the calendar interface in very short periods of time.
Evolution uses Exchange Web Services to gather calendar data, and IMAP for messages.
There is, however, a MAPI add-on available, but the last time i checked it only worked with Exchange 2003. The IMAP+EWS combination works well, and is implemented in other mail applications - for example, the Mail app that comes with OS X.
You really should read up on Exchange Powershell:
export-mailbox -identity username -startdate MMDDYYYY -enddate MMDDYYYY -targetfolder foo -targetmailbox username (or if you're daring, you can specify a PST file).
and for mailbox sizes:
To further address your concerns about client compatibility...
Instead of using MAPI, which is admittedly a flawed and convoluted protocol, many mail clients are being developed to take advantaged of Exchange Web Services. The Mail app that ships with most versions of OS X uses IMAP to fetch mail from Exchange, and Exchange Web Services to work with the calendar. I believe that Evolution does something similar.
In the future, you'll see these same clients start to use EWS for mail as well. The newest version of Entourage will use EWS exclusively when dealing with Exchange servers (until recently, it used a MAPI implementation).
IMAP is enabled on ALL MAILBOXES in Exchange 2007 by default. You just have to configure a few settings and enable the service. You can also disable IMAP globally.
To answer your previous assertion that Thunderbird doesn't work - you're wrong again. Our user base uses Thunderbird extensively. Like many universities, we used to push Eudora, waaaay back before we moved to Exchange 5.5, and a lot of professors liked Eudora enough that they will never use Outlook. Thunderbird is the most suitable replacement for Eudora that we've been able to identify. It works great with or without SSL encryption, using POP or IMAP.
So seriously, you very obviously don't have a clue. Please stop with the misinformation.
Windows clustering allows for Active/Active clusters, so you CAN run the same service on two cluster nodes at the same time (with the exception of Exchange).
Setting up two servers to host VMWare guests and copying is not a good idea either - the HA tools for VMWare are expensive, and totally unneccessary for the proposed deployment. Without these HA tools, he would have to down his primary guest every time he wanted to make a snapshot.
We're talking about a very simple deployment here - HTTP and FTP. You don't even need clustering or a dedicated load balancer - instead, try using round-robin DNS records to do some simple load balancing, and then use a shared storage area as your FTP root (could be a DFS share for Windows or an NFS mount in Linux). This would give you a solid two-server solution that works well for what you're trying to accomplish, and adding servers would be trivial (just deploy more nodes, and add DNS records to the list).
If it grows much larger than 2 nodes, you might consider an inexpensive load-balancer; Barracuda sells one that works well and will detect a downed node.
Clustering for this job is totally unnecessary though. You're wasting your time by looking into it.
who is gaining from this dumbing down of the population?
In most cases, it's because a stupid consumer is the best kind of consumer.
In some cases, it's because a stupid ideologue makes for a faithful ideologue. One who won't question you when you ask him for 10% of his paycheck on Sunday (just an example, it's not limited to people who worship on Sundays).
And then there's always the idea that a stupid voter is the easiest type to influence. The type that would vote on issues that impact him emotionally, like whether or not he's descended from apes. If you're trying to garner votes from a group of people with a very strong negative opinion of a particular scientific theory, you take a position against that theory. When necessary, you even go so far as to manufacture a looming crisis to make it seem that much more urgent.
At the end of it all, it's about money, and fools. Something about how they're easily parted...
Whenever I have problems with demons taking up residence in my brain, I just shoot them. That's right, I said shoot them. Kill 'em all, and let the good lord Jesus sort 'em out.
But seriously, if you're not interested in purging yourself from the gene pool, you need to be on some serious medication, and you need to undergo a lot of counseling. Your religion isn't the solution...it's part of the problem.
How do you get through life assuming that everyone is a programmer? Again, I seem to have forgotten where I am. Slashdot - the "home away from home" for narrow-minded ideologues.
believe me, if it's on a website, SOMEONE, somewhere, is going to buy it hook, line, and sinker.
Personally, i'm sure most of the slashdot crowd - whether they like MS, linux, BSD, or whatever - don't put much stock into these "comparisons," no matter who publishes or pays for them.
how come when MS sponsors a comparison, and the results favor their OS and/or software over linux, it's just GOT to be a big conspiracy? Why doesn't the same criticism hold true for the supposedly "unbiased" comparisons that are done by linux-friendly companies like IBM and Red Hat?
just for sake of clarification, SameTime does not interoperate with AIM. The SameTime client has a built-in AIM client that can be used from the same contact manager window (think of Trillian), but SameTime and AIM are still very separate (that is, a SameTime application can be used for chatting with other SameTime users or AIM users, but not in the same chat "room").
That's a bit of a gray area, since (as far as I know) TiVO modding doesn't involve any circumvention of their copy protection scheme (I'm not sure if they even HAVE a copy protection scheme).
To answer your question, though...yes, hacking a TiVo would be against the law - DESPITE THE FACT THAT TIVO ENCOURAGES IT - provided that some copy protection device was being hacked. However, illegal as it might be, you're only going to get in trouble if TiVo decides to press charges, which they don't seem to be doing.
The analogy you present really isn't valid anyway. Let's say I own a bank, and I run a forum on the internet about bank robbery techniques. Does that make it legal to rob my bank? Absolutely not. Laws are laws, and a corporation's policy does not change that fact.
If I use it to play pirated games then I am breaking the law because the vendor has copyright on the game, not because I have done anything illegal with the console.
Get your head out of the clouds there, kid. You're spewing the same garbage that every software pirate in the world uses in his defense. What you're saying is quite simply NOT TRUE because the DMCA is LAW. Unfortunate as that may be, it's still the truth, and modding an XBox is illegal as long as the DMCA remains in effect.
So quit deluding yourself. If you mod something, it's illegal. Of course, that's not going to stop me from doing it, but at least I admit that what I'm doing is in fact against the law.
The Newport, KY Imax theatre showed the Matrix for a few nights back in April, i believe. Having seen it, I can only make two comments about huge-screen movies:
1. Too big.
2. Too loud.
I know that sounds kinda prudish and totally un-male of me, but there is a line that you have to draw when pursuing that "bigger, better, faster, more..." method of evolution. When you actually have to turn your head from side to side because the screen exceeds your field of vision, you're well across that line.
A user's ability to crash his or her desktop machine does NOT constitute a HUGE risk, as you put it (especially when considering that it requires binary/hex editors and various other obscure tools that your typical user just doesn't have).
And any competent netadmin/sysadmin will make sure that those same users don't have the ability to run arbitrary code on a server.
I agree that this is a serious flaw in MS's design, but christ, aren't you blowing it just a BIT out of proportion? Seriously...can you think of a single situation where this would ACTUALLY create a real security risk?
The END of WINDOWS? Christ, could you pack just a little more apocalyptic FUD into that statement?
This "exploit" is hardly even an exploit - it requires the ability to run arbitrary code. And if just anybody can acquire the ability to run arbitrary code, then i would say the problem runs a bit deeper than msgsvr32.dll.
Here's something to chew on, zealot: use this exploit on my win2k server. I dare you. What? You can't get in? Oh, you mean the BASIC SECURITY FEATURES BUILT INTO THE OPERATING SYSTEM HAVE THWARTED THIS EXPLOIT BEFORE IT COULD EVEN GET OFF THE GROUND? That's what I thought.
Christ, your drivel is actually making me sick. Do you actually believe what you just wrote?
Is this really a security risk?
on
Shattering Windows
·
· Score: 0, Troll
This whole exploit seems flawed in its assumptions...I mean, how can it be classified as a security risk of ANY sort if it requires that someone is sitting in front of the computer? It seems like this is something that could easily (EASILY) be avoided by - wait for it - preventing unauthorized access! Something that Windows has been doing pretty well since Windows 2000 (flame on, zealots, but it's true).
Sounds like this guy is just trying to gain cool-guy points with the slashbot crowd by showing off his 1337 windoze hacking skillz. Pass.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, but the MAPI/CDO client package is available as a free download. It's generally listed as a prerequisite for any application that requires it.
Not that much of an inconvenience, really.
powershell uses UTC with an offset for the locale; however, you can remove the offeset if you wish and retrieve UTC only; you can even apply unix-style formatting if you want.
Powershell is pretty friggin awesome once you scratch the surface...
I think you've muddled the MAPI client and MAPI protocol together, so i'll clarify for you: MAPI as a client access method (ie the MAPI protocol) is built-in, and turned on by default. For Outlook clients who are on the same network as your Mailbox server(s), this is the default connection method. The MAPI client bits, however, are not included in Exchange server anymore. Really the only thing that i've found that this affects is the ability to export mail to a PST when working directly on a mailbox server. It's been replaced by a number of powershell commands (export-mailbox, import-mailbox), and can still be done on workstations with Outlook installed (because the MAPI client bits are part of Outlook).
Exchange isn't an applications platform, and isn't billed as such. It's Groupware, period, full stop.
That's not to say that Exchange 5.5 wasn't billed as an apps platform, but that was 10 years ago. Things change, and your anecdote from 1998 can't possibly be expected to reflect the current state of affairs.
For what it's worth, Exchange can interact with external applications through the use of the Exchange Web Services API, which is a little difficult to grasp at times, but it's well documented on MSDN. We've developed several custom applications around the calendar interface in very short periods of time.
You're both correct, sort of.
Evolution uses Exchange Web Services to gather calendar data, and IMAP for messages.
There is, however, a MAPI add-on available, but the last time i checked it only worked with Exchange 2003. The IMAP+EWS combination works well, and is implemented in other mail applications - for example, the Mail app that comes with OS X.
You could even script the two together, to identify mailboxes larger than, say, 1 GB and then export items older than 180 days...
Seriously, RTFM.
To further address your concerns about client compatibility...
Instead of using MAPI, which is admittedly a flawed and convoluted protocol, many mail clients are being developed to take advantaged of Exchange Web Services. The Mail app that ships with most versions of OS X uses IMAP to fetch mail from Exchange, and Exchange Web Services to work with the calendar. I believe that Evolution does something similar.
In the future, you'll see these same clients start to use EWS for mail as well. The newest version of Entourage will use EWS exclusively when dealing with Exchange servers (until recently, it used a MAPI implementation).
Who is modding this guy up?
IMAP is enabled on ALL MAILBOXES in Exchange 2007 by default. You just have to configure a few settings and enable the service. You can also disable IMAP globally.
To answer your previous assertion that Thunderbird doesn't work - you're wrong again. Our user base uses Thunderbird extensively. Like many universities, we used to push Eudora, waaaay back before we moved to Exchange 5.5, and a lot of professors liked Eudora enough that they will never use Outlook. Thunderbird is the most suitable replacement for Eudora that we've been able to identify. It works great with or without SSL encryption, using POP or IMAP.
So seriously, you very obviously don't have a clue. Please stop with the misinformation.
Windows clustering allows for Active/Active clusters, so you CAN run the same service on two cluster nodes at the same time (with the exception of Exchange).
Setting up two servers to host VMWare guests and copying is not a good idea either - the HA tools for VMWare are expensive, and totally unneccessary for the proposed deployment. Without these HA tools, he would have to down his primary guest every time he wanted to make a snapshot.
We're talking about a very simple deployment here - HTTP and FTP. You don't even need clustering or a dedicated load balancer - instead, try using round-robin DNS records to do some simple load balancing, and then use a shared storage area as your FTP root (could be a DFS share for Windows or an NFS mount in Linux). This would give you a solid two-server solution that works well for what you're trying to accomplish, and adding servers would be trivial (just deploy more nodes, and add DNS records to the list).
If it grows much larger than 2 nodes, you might consider an inexpensive load-balancer; Barracuda sells one that works well and will detect a downed node.
Clustering for this job is totally unnecessary though. You're wasting your time by looking into it.
who is gaining from this dumbing down of the population?
In most cases, it's because a stupid consumer is the best kind of consumer.
In some cases, it's because a stupid ideologue makes for a faithful ideologue. One who won't question you when you ask him for 10% of his paycheck on Sunday (just an example, it's not limited to people who worship on Sundays).
And then there's always the idea that a stupid voter is the easiest type to influence. The type that would vote on issues that impact him emotionally, like whether or not he's descended from apes. If you're trying to garner votes from a group of people with a very strong negative opinion of a particular scientific theory, you take a position against that theory. When necessary, you even go so far as to manufacture a looming crisis to make it seem that much more urgent.
At the end of it all, it's about money, and fools. Something about how they're easily parted...
god i wish i had mod points.
it's creepy shit like this that makes me love slashdot.
The unit already does scheduled disk-to-disk backups, without any hacking, which should cover whatever data integrity concerns you may have.
Whenever I have problems with demons taking up residence in my brain, I just shoot them. That's right, I said shoot them. Kill 'em all, and let the good lord Jesus sort 'em out.
But seriously, if you're not interested in purging yourself from the gene pool, you need to be on some serious medication, and you need to undergo a lot of counseling. Your religion isn't the solution...it's part of the problem.
This is also worth wasting karma over:
How do you expect to be able to CODE well?
How do you get through life assuming that everyone is a programmer? Again, I seem to have forgotten where I am. Slashdot - the "home away from home" for narrow-minded ideologues.
believe me, if it's on a website, SOMEONE, somewhere, is going to buy it hook, line, and sinker.
Personally, i'm sure most of the slashdot crowd - whether they like MS, linux, BSD, or whatever - don't put much stock into these "comparisons," no matter who publishes or pays for them.
Anyway, I was really just trying to be funny.
how come when MS sponsors a comparison, and the results favor their OS and/or software over linux, it's just GOT to be a big conspiracy? Why doesn't the same criticism hold true for the supposedly "unbiased" comparisons that are done by linux-friendly companies like IBM and Red Hat?
Oh wait, i forgot...this is slashdot.
Usenet is the Wild West of the Internet.
I believe a more appropriate metaphor would be "Usenet is the Ancient Indian Burial Ground of the Internet."
Comparing it to the Wild West would lead people to believe that it's new and uncharted. On the contrary, it's very, very, VERY old and busted.
uhhh....yeah. I'll bet he's collected on that plenty of times. Especially considering how menacing he looks in that picture.
just for sake of clarification, SameTime does not interoperate with AIM. The SameTime client has a built-in AIM client that can be used from the same contact manager window (think of Trillian), but SameTime and AIM are still very separate (that is, a SameTime application can be used for chatting with other SameTime users or AIM users, but not in the same chat "room").
That's a bit of a gray area, since (as far as I know) TiVO modding doesn't involve any circumvention of their copy protection scheme (I'm not sure if they even HAVE a copy protection scheme).
To answer your question, though...yes, hacking a TiVo would be against the law - DESPITE THE FACT THAT TIVO ENCOURAGES IT - provided that some copy protection device was being hacked. However, illegal as it might be, you're only going to get in trouble if TiVo decides to press charges, which they don't seem to be doing.
The analogy you present really isn't valid anyway. Let's say I own a bank, and I run a forum on the internet about bank robbery techniques. Does that make it legal to rob my bank? Absolutely not. Laws are laws, and a corporation's policy does not change that fact.
If I use it to play pirated games then I am breaking the law because the vendor has copyright on the game, not because I have done anything illegal with the console.
Get your head out of the clouds there, kid. You're spewing the same garbage that every software pirate in the world uses in his defense. What you're saying is quite simply NOT TRUE because the DMCA is LAW. Unfortunate as that may be, it's still the truth, and modding an XBox is illegal as long as the DMCA remains in effect.
So quit deluding yourself. If you mod something, it's illegal. Of course, that's not going to stop me from doing it, but at least I admit that what I'm doing is in fact against the law.
The Newport, KY Imax theatre showed the Matrix for a few nights back in April, i believe. Having seen it, I can only make two comments about huge-screen movies:
1. Too big.
2. Too loud.
I know that sounds kinda prudish and totally un-male of me, but there is a line that you have to draw when pursuing that "bigger, better, faster, more..." method of evolution. When you actually have to turn your head from side to side because the screen exceeds your field of vision, you're well across that line.
A user's ability to crash his or her desktop machine does NOT constitute a HUGE risk, as you put it (especially when considering that it requires binary/hex editors and various other obscure tools that your typical user just doesn't have).
And any competent netadmin/sysadmin will make sure that those same users don't have the ability to run arbitrary code on a server.
I agree that this is a serious flaw in MS's design, but christ, aren't you blowing it just a BIT out of proportion? Seriously...can you think of a single situation where this would ACTUALLY create a real security risk?
The END of WINDOWS? Christ, could you pack just a little more apocalyptic FUD into that statement?
This "exploit" is hardly even an exploit - it requires the ability to run arbitrary code. And if just anybody can acquire the ability to run arbitrary code, then i would say the problem runs a bit deeper than msgsvr32.dll.
Here's something to chew on, zealot: use this exploit on my win2k server. I dare you. What? You can't get in? Oh, you mean the BASIC SECURITY FEATURES BUILT INTO THE OPERATING SYSTEM HAVE THWARTED THIS EXPLOIT BEFORE IT COULD EVEN GET OFF THE GROUND? That's what I thought.
Christ, your drivel is actually making me sick. Do you actually believe what you just wrote?
This whole exploit seems flawed in its assumptions...I mean, how can it be classified as a security risk of ANY sort if it requires that someone is sitting in front of the computer? It seems like this is something that could easily (EASILY) be avoided by - wait for it - preventing unauthorized access! Something that Windows has been doing pretty well since Windows 2000 (flame on, zealots, but it's true).
Sounds like this guy is just trying to gain cool-guy points with the slashbot crowd by showing off his 1337 windoze hacking skillz. Pass.