|
Just have all your email auto forward to slack 
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:44 |
|
|
Thanks, I'll take a look at Office 365 and see what's up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
I am really leaning towards the idea that users are just idiots but here it goes. We use Office 365 for email. I have a system that log into office 365 and emails out invoices as pdfs to customers. All our customers with @att.net email address can't seem to open the pdfs. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Calidus posted:I am really leaning towards the idea that users are just idiots but here it goes. We use Office 365 for email. I have a system that log into office 365 and emails out invoices as pdfs to customers. All our customers with @att.net email address can't seem to open the pdfs. how many recipients? chances off with PRO email addresses like that, they are using PRO level security quote:If using Mcafee Security Suite (or the ATT Internet Security Suite powered by Mcafee), you need to do the following:
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
4 customers between att.net and sbcgobal.net I will investigate the Mcafee crapware but I think it might actually be something with at&t. I sent some pdfs to a personal yahoo email and they opened fine on one of the customers computers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Calidus posted:4 customers between att.net and sbcgobal.net only reason i mentioned it is because i had the same thing happen when i used to work helldesk 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Calidus posted:I am really leaning towards the idea that users are just idiots but here it goes. We use Office 365 for email. I have a system that log into office 365 and emails out invoices as pdfs to customers. All our customers with @att.net email address can't seem to open the pdfs. Train them to send onedrive links?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Today my client said he wants me to make the whole LAN be PCI compliant even though they don't do CC processing anywhere on the LAN.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
NevergirlsOFFICIAL posted:Today my client said he wants me to make the whole LAN be PCI compliant even though they don't do CC processing anywhere on the LAN. did they specify WHICH lan or just "the lan" Pretend you are a slightly twisted genie and give em their wish 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
That's easy if you've got things up to snuff security wise, just do the self-assessment questionnaire. It's dead easy if you don't actually handle any credit card data.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Sheep posted:That's easy if you've got things up to snuff security wise, just do the self-assessment questionnaire. It's dead easy if you don't actually handle any credit card data. There is no CC transactions or handling on the LAN. He wants me to pretend that they are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
NevergirlsOFFICIAL posted:Today my client said he wants me to make the whole LAN be PCI compliant even though they don't do CC processing anywhere on the LAN. "Can you just, I mean..." Mr. Timberwell spun outstretched index fingers in a tight pair of circles over his head as if to encompass not only the repurposed two-story motel block he purchased at pennies on the dollar after a fire thirty years ago, but the full breadth and force of his eight-figure telephone tarot card empire. "We gotta be compliant." "Compliant?" "PCI compliance. Vinnie says we gotta put up papers before the credit card companies will let us swipe plastic." Left hand folded at eye-level, Timberwell enthusiastically drew a phantom credit card from the chest pocket of his orange-and-yellow Hawaiian button-down and swiped it like a knife. "So to speak." Nevergirls gave an affirmative head shake, jaw motionless, revealing nothing. He stood, buttoning his jacket and excused himself from the office, nodding a second time at the chainsmoking secretary with her feet up on the desk in Timberwell's anteroom filing her nails. She paid as much mind to Nevergirls' exit as she did his entry three minutes ago. The cigarette had mysteriously regenerated itself since then. "And send in Sammy, would you?" Nevergirls heard from the interior office. A nervous young woman with thick makeup, presumably Sammy, stood from her chair in the anteroom and entered Timberwell's office, squeezing past Mr. Timberwell's bulging hulk as he held the door for her, closing it behind them. Nevergirls was able to make out a "So, lets start with your sexiest phone voice, Misses Samm..." before half-stepping, half-stumbling out of the secretary's tobacco haze. He was able to keep it together just long enough to make it to his car. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
I'm really getting into roleplaying with third party service providers myself. I'm all like, pretend I'm a doctors office and I need to be HIPPA compliant. I've left the default password policy on  I'm a baaadddd doctors office. I paid for a HIPPA compliance report from another company and I ignored it teehee
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Fine me. Oh. Fine me harder!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
I had a pair of techs out to install new cash redemption machines (ATMs linked to poker/slot machines for withdrawal of winnings from the machines) who couldn't explain why, when testing one machine the other would get a comms/network issue and then go back to normal after the transaction completed. They were positive it was a fault with the new cabling. Crossed wires or interference. Refused to continue work until I rectified the issue. What it actually was, was they image all their machines with the same image, which contained a manually set physical address. So all three of the machines they were installing were sharing the same MAC. this was an interesting discussion to have considering the way I arrived at that being the problem was asking them to give me the MAC addresses so I could reserve IPs on the domain controller and he just rattled it off from memory followed by "it's the same for all three". Supposedly he's never seen this problem in 20 years of installing these machines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
I feel like I could use a sanity check, and this seems an appropriate place to ask. We're a small office of ~10 people. We have one physical server: a pretty basic Dell T320 (Xeon E5 2407, 8GB RAM, PERC S110 software RAID controller with 2x 1TB 7.2k SATA drives in RAID1) running Server 2012 R2 Essentials (on bare metal, not a VM). It's serving as a DC, DHCP, file server, print server (2 printers), WSUS and occasionally MDT. It's mostly ticking along just fine, apart from 2 problems: we're running out of space, and the performance of the OS is slow as hell (using Remote Desktop and the various admin tools feels worse than an old slow laptop drive), though accessing shared files from client computers seems fine. I know that the software RAID is no good, but I didn't expect it to bog down so much with a simple RAID1. At the very least we need new some hard drives, but we have some downtime coming up during an office move and I figured it would be worth upgrading to a proper RAID controller and reconfigure the server, possibly virtualising it. Does the following seem sensible?
This would then allow the option of running additional VMs as necessary down the line, migrating to Server Standard rather than Essentials for example (we're a charity and have access to cheap copies of Windows Server and related CALs). I'm new to virtualising servers, and am trying not to do anything dumb and stick to best practices (without spending too much on hardware). Am I on the right track?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
GigaFuzz posted:I feel like I could use a sanity check, and this seems an appropriate place to ask. sounds pretty good. Keep in mind microsoft VM licensing, and migrating out of an essentials environment rarely works as easily as it says on the tin, due to your smaller usercount rebuilding anything shouldn't be too strenuous but I definitely like the flexibility you get with keeping stuff virtual just for ease of backup and movement to differing hardware. also, running more than one vm on that machine might tax the workload a bit due to the clock speed of that processor and the amount of ram you have available. Also keep in mind you are going to have to use powershell or remote management tools with hyper v due to its lack of gui. Hope any of that helps in some way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
GigaFuzz posted:I feel like I could use a sanity check, and this seems an appropriate place to ask.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Thanks for that. I'll look into a memory upgrade as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
PRTG is free for small installations for a single server you would be VERY hard pressed to need to pay. Keep track of what resources the server is using heavily. It might not be RAM causing the current issue but if you are going to do VMs you will very likely run into issues. The most interesting ones are going to be the harddrive statistics, try and get schedule a test when no one else is there to stress the drives and see what the max throughput is. See if you are hitting that during business hours.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
For small offices with one physical server we always do free ESXi hypervisor and then put Windows on top. I don't know how hyperv licensing works but that's one you wouldn't have to worry about. You could do P2V for that server using the vmware tool and your laptop, store it on a NAS, then install esxi, and migrate the newly created vm back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
NevergirlsOFFICIAL posted:For small offices with one physical server we always do free ESXi hypervisor and then put Windows on top. I don't know how hyperv licensing works but that's one you wouldn't have to worry about. You could do P2V for that server using the vmware tool and your laptop, store it on a NAS, then install esxi, and migrate the newly created vm back. I've considered ESXi, but with Hyper-V Server (CLI-only, Hyper-V only) being free, and me already being familiar with the Hyper-V tools, it may be easier to go that route. If I get some time I'll experiment with ESXi as well. What's another reason for getting a proper RAID controller - I believe ESXi won't work with the software one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
ESXi has a really sweet HTML5 gui thrown in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
NevergirlsOFFICIAL posted:For small offices with one physical server we always do free ESXi hypervisor and then put Windows on top. I don't know how hyperv licensing works but that's one you wouldn't have to worry about. You could do P2V for that server using the vmware tool and your laptop, store it on a NAS, then install esxi, and migrate the newly created vm back. Hyper-V is 100% free, it's included with Windows Server. You can run as many copies of linux on it and if they hyper visor runs no services you can run up to 2 copies of that version of server as VMs under the license. If they host runs any service or software that is not Hyper-V it consumes one of your VM licenses. You can run the full GUI if you are more comfortable with that and have the resources and it still not eat one of the two VMs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
pixaal posted:...and if they hyper visor runs no services you can run up to 2 copies of that version of server as VMs under the license. If they host runs any service or software that is not Hyper-V it consumes one of your VM licenses. I'm not quite understanding this. Can you explain that a bit further?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Crowley posted:I'm not quite understanding this. Can you explain that a bit further? Trigger warning: MS Licensing Windows Server Standard allows you to install Windows Server as a Hyper-V host (only), then run two Windows Server VMs on that host, all under one license. If you use the bare-metal Hyper-V install for anything else, you can only have 1 VM. From the PDF you can download here: "Windows Server 2012 R2 Standard edition will entitle you to run one instance in the physical OSE and two instances in the virtual OSE with each license. If all of the allowed instances are running then the instance in the physical can only be used to manage the virtual instances".
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
Microsoft licensing is dark magic. Just finished a compliance audit with flying colors, but man microsofts eye of sauron sucks balls. Just be cautious and read ALL the licencing things and make sure you are covered when deploying stuff like Remote Desktop Services or More than 2 VMs on anything less than datacenter server.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
GigaFuzz posted:Trigger warning: MS Licensing Yup MS licensing is crazy, you also need to license a server for the max number of VMs it could run if you have multiple in a cluster. So if you have 5VMs one 1 host and 5 on another you have 10VMs total you need each one to be licensed for 10VMs if you plan on using them as fail overs. If this is confusing just buy datacenter as it allows unlimited VMs and is licensed by core of the host. If you have a 2 server cluster you can think of it as 1 copy of server per VM unless you are perfectly fine with when the host fails to not have any access to that VM. If you have a 3 server cluster things can get complicated you technically would need to prove there is no way for 15VMs to be running on 1 server if you are running 5/5/5. I'm not sure on current pricing but 10VMs was right around the break point for just getting datacenter, which a non profit might have really cheap access to. I'm not sure datacenter is even a good option for under 32GB of RAM though would be hard pressed to run that many VMs. Oh and this is just how I have been lead to understand if by my MS rep, different reps will claim different things apparently so ask Microsoft and do what they say, you will now have something in writing that says you were fine if an audit says you are out of compliance. Don't forget the CALs. TL;DR each copy of server comes with 2 licenses running hyper-v does not consume a license running hyper-v + a file share would consume a license. Licenses are attached to hardware not VMs. Licenses cannot be moved as part of a failover plan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Also dont forget about server 2016 being licenced per core. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cloud-platform/windows-server-pricing because hey that'll give everyone so much incentive to upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Bud K ninja sword posted:Also dont forget about server 2016 being licenced per core. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cloud-platform/windows-server-pricing It gives you 16 cores 32 threads as the minimum licenses. For anything small that is already overkill just like the 2 socket minimum was. It does make the new AMD stuff less attractive if that ends up being good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
pixaal posted:It gives you 16 cores 32 threads as the minimum licenses. For anything small that is already overkill just like the 2 socket minimum was. It does make the new AMD stuff less attractive if that ends up being good. oh. that makes more sense, thanks
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Bud K ninja sword posted:oh. that makes more sense, thanks We're in the small shop thread, it does make it more expensive for larger builds but I think that's outside the scope of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
pixaal posted:We're in the small shop thread, it does make it more expensive for larger builds but I think that's outside the scope of this thread. Yeah, I just am a weird niche where i have way more compute horsepower than actual users, so microsoft licensing starts eyeballing you weird when you start throwing enterprise stuff into what is traditionally a small business environment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
I hate ms licensing so much
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
GigaFuzz posted:Windows Server Standard allows you to install Windows Server as a Hyper-V host (only), then run two Windows Server VMs on that host, all under one license. If you use the bare-metal Hyper-V install for anything else, you can only have 1 VM. Got it! I "won" handling all the licensing crap at my workplace, but I'm only versed in Hyper-V Datacenter Server / cluster licensing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
I am trying to make the only MS licensing I deal with stuff like Office 365 that is impossible to be under-licensed on. I am happy for our connectivity provider to build and maintain their own VMware environment and have SPLA handle the Windows licensing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
i honestly am pining for the fjords for the days when you didnt have to subscribe to everything. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
gently caress that, subscribe me to everything. Easier to track and easier to hold management's feet to the fire if they start getting cheap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Yeah, being able to have a set in stone price per user is great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:44 |
|
|
i dunno guys im kinda cheap. and outlook aint improved that much without breaking half my plugins half a dozen times and making that horrible white theme.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 00:44
|
|