|
fakest of edits: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3286440 There's a PowerShell thread in the Cavern of Cobol but it's pretty low traffic.
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:15 |
|
|
Just a random thought that I'd like to bounce off people - which is that Mimecast is not worth putting in front of Office 365 if your only reason for doing it is to improve availability. Since you aren't really adding resiliency in the same way as having multiple servers behind a load balancer, you're just substituting one set of MX records for another, then your best case scenario for availability becomes whatever Mimecast's is. And in the worst case scenario aren't you just doubling your total annual outage duration, assuming both products have the same SLA? Am I missing something here? I can't think of a situation where the uptime stats for Mimecast are going to be higher than Office 365 or G Suite. Especially as anecdotally I have witnessed a Mimecast 'not an outage honest' that slowed down mail delivery, but haven't had the same issue across multiple Office 365 tenants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:Just a random thought that I'd like to bounce off people - which is that Mimecast is not worth putting in front of Office 365 if your only reason for doing it is to improve availability. Since you aren't really adding resiliency in the same way as having multiple servers behind a load balancer, you're just substituting one set of MX records for another, then your best case scenario for availability becomes whatever Mimecast's is. And in the worst case scenario aren't you just doubling your total annual outage duration, assuming both products have the same SLA?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:Just a random thought that I'd like to bounce off people - which is that Mimecast is not worth putting in front of Office 365 if your only reason for doing it is to improve availability. Since you aren't really adding resiliency in the same way as having multiple servers behind a load balancer, you're just substituting one set of MX records for another, then your best case scenario for availability becomes whatever Mimecast's is. And in the worst case scenario aren't you just doubling your total annual outage duration, assuming both products have the same SLA? I wouldn't use the e-mail continuity service with Office 365, but if you prefer their archiving and filtering services over the ones built in to O365, that could be worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
The Fool posted:I wouldn't use the e-mail continuity service with Office 365, but if you prefer their archiving and filtering services over the ones built in to O365, that could be worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
In fairness I hadn't thought about the filtering. I know the Microsoft one used to be terrible on the older BPOS service when I first evaluated it against Google Apps, but I couldn't pick a winner between what comes with the major  providers now - as long as you've sorted out SPF/DKIM/DMARC etc. I could see value in being able to tweak Mimecast policies in terms of accepting mail that would otherwise be filtered if you have clients with poorly configured email servers and people yelling at you to make it work.
Thanks Ants fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:In fairness I hadn't thought about the filtering. I know the Microsoft one used to be terrible on the older BPOS service when I first evaluated it against Google Apps, but I couldn't pick a winner between what comes with the major
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Sunblood posted:A ticket came in: "Please see attached spreadsheet. Users listed should be the only members of Security Group X. Please add and remove members as necessary." An update to office 365 will create a new group for each manager will all of their managed by users if certain requirements are met. These groups will not automatically updated if new managed by users are added or removed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
lampey posted:These groups will not automatically updated if new managed by users are added or removed. Typical
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
thebigcow posted:fakest of edits:
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Eh even if it's a dead thread, it is a great place to start, thank you! Wouldn't call it dead, just not as active as these threads.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
Yeah. There's not a lot of idle conversation, but there are enough people that have it bookmarked that questions get answered fairly quickly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
ticket posted:I'm going to contact BMW to get their help but wondered if you have any suggestions. The problem is that I can't read the body of a plain text email in the car. I can read the body of some emails - those that aren't plain text. I'll forward one of the emails that I can read in a moment. If you have any thoughts as to why l would be very grateful. Why does this feature exist?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:Why would you want to set up email on your car? A really effective way to reduce the population issue?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:Why would you want to set up email on your car? AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Test.to.speach.bee are ue atche. Ever listen to someone visually impared use something like jaws or magic (when they work  )? If they've been using it for a while they'll have the speed turned up so high it's barely understandable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
I'm baffled that any kind of email reader, speech-to-text or not, would handle rich text parts but not plain text 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:I'm baffled that any kind of email reader, speech-to-text or not, would handle rich text parts but not plain text It's a high end BMW, only rich text need apply.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
A new ticket came in: Hi, I cant remember my password. Here are the instructions I received: 1. Go to the Supplier site log in page <redacted>. 2. Enter your Login ID: <redacted> 3. If you have forgotten your password, you can click on the ‘forgot password’ link. My response was "Please refer to the instructions that you were provided" then I closed the ticket.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Today's fun is Firefox 52 doesn't automatically fill username/passwords on insecure sites. Oh man are the users raging.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Oh poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
SSL will never properly gain traction until the SEO types who warn about the handshake protocol affecting results shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Heard about that in the Schadenfreude thread:Parts Kit posted:Some of you guys may have noticed Firefox is now warning you if a login username/password box is not protected by encryption. If you haven't seen it, Firefox is putting a little pop up on the boxes like the little hover tool-tips you see for image alt-text and so on. MisterOblivious posted:"Even good 'ol Netscape warns you! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Today's fun is Firefox 52 doesn't automatically fill username/passwords on insecure sites. Oh man are the users raging. Is this what my mom has been panic calling me about all week? She insists her "fox fire" has a virus on both the desktop and laptop. I assumed it was something like this, is there a way to disable that poo poo? It's really freaking her out and I'm not sure I'll be able to convince her it's because the site isn't using https.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
pixaal posted:Is this what my mom has been panic calling me about all week? She insists her "fox fire" has a virus on both the desktop and laptop. I assumed it was something like this, is there a way to disable that poo poo? It's really freaking her out and I'm not sure I'll be able to convince her it's because the site isn't using https. There is no way to disable this. That's kind of the point. Chrome will also warn either in the current version or one of the very soon to be released versions IIRC and Microsoft plans to add it to Edge by next year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
hihifellow posted:Ever listen to someone visually impared use something like jaws or magic (when they work One of my friends is blind, and I see her put her phone up next to her ear and rapidfire gibberish comes out, but she understands it all. It's amazing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
The good news is this will very quickly flush out all the awful unencrypted sites when their admins* inevitably raise hell and attract the gleeful hordes. If that was the strategy then it's already paying off handsomely. *dumbass business owners who hired the cheapest web devs they could find / cajole / bribe with balloons and amusement park rides and who are now a million miles away and there is no hope of them ever fixing the site
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
I understand where Chrome/Firefox are coming from but man it makes it a pain in the dick for the users on websites where the vendor isn't going to change poo poo. IT USED TO WORK WHY DID YOU BREAK IT
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There is no way to disable this. That's kind of the point. I do get that it's the point, the only site she's mentioned it come up on is her work email. She also thinks her work email might have a virus. Trying to explain this away to non technical person is just a headache. I'll gladly take a look because I'm not a jerk, and I also will get a free meal. I understand pushing sites to actually use SSL as this will turn users away it's just a problem I see coming up every week until her work fixes their poo poo which they probably never will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Our Microsoft licenses were up for renewal, so I contacted the company that handles those for a quote. After three weeks of pestering them, I finally got the quote. I shot off a PO to get the process started and after another week, I was informed that they would have to update the information on the account from my predecessor to me, and that it would take a little time. I told them to please do it as fast as possible because our licenses were approaching expiration and we needed this done. Another two weeks of pestering and they finally send the agreement to my tech. Fine, whatever, we both order stuff so they probably just got the emails mixed up. I log in to volume licensing to sign the agreement and holy poo poo they have set up my technician as the representative for our district. They've taken so long to get this done that I can't wait for this to be corrected without losing access to O365 so it looks like he's the rep the for the next year. I hate this company so goddamn much but my predecessor signed a three year contract with them before he left. Desk scotch is my only savior.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
Client facing Slack channels continue to be a source of both amusement (to me) and embarrassment (to my boss) (client): We're doing a (totally unsupported by the vendor) SQL upgrade and need $vendor_services shutdown on $vendor_appliances so we can do the upgrade. Please leave the servers on (coworker): Okay I shut down the servers and let you know when they've stopped responding to pings Why did you shut down the servers, they're supposed to be left on!!!Thankfully I'm on site at said client so I go up to turn on said servers. Find that they're somehow in sleep mode/frozen so I reboot them. Okay the servers are back on. I shut down $vendor_services and SQL Part of the upgrade is SQL, please stop shutting things downMe: :  This client is hard to deal with at the best of times, this is going to make things worse. My coworker is like "well I hope this doesn't make him mad". Of course not, why would you cutting their upgrade window short by a half hour and possibly screwing up the upgrade make him mad?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:I understand where Chrome/Firefox are coming from but man it makes it a pain in the dick for the users on websites where the vendor isn't going to change poo poo. If it pushes people towards vendors that do crazy futuristic things like protecting logins with SSL then it has achieved its goal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
My face when someone finds poo poo I did basically in my spare time useful: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Why are they doing a fire drill in the middle of the day with no preparation?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Bigass Moth posted:Why are they doing a fire drill in the middle of the day with no preparation? That's the point of a fire drill though
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Firefox still lists the login under the warning and fills in if you click on it. Am I missing something, or are people freaking out because it takes an extra mouse click?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
thebigcow posted:Firefox still lists the login under the warning and fills in if you click on it. Am I missing something, or are people freaking out because it takes an extra mouse click? Because if you tell an average computer user "entering your password here means hackers are probably gonna get it" with a warning box they'll freak out
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
thebigcow posted:Firefox still lists the login under the warning and fills in if you click on it. Am I missing something, or are people freaking out because it takes an extra mouse click? Jewel posted:Because if you tell an average computer user "entering your password here means hackers are probably gonna get it" with a warning box they'll freak out And also do you really think a user is going to figure this out on their own, unless by accident?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
KoRMaK posted:That's the point of a fire drill though nah doing one unannounced kills productivity, interrupts work, and can cause unnecessary panic. There's no reason to not tell people ahead of time so they can appropriately schedule their work around the drill.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:15 |
|
|
thebigcow posted:Firefox still lists the login under the warning and fills in if you click on it. Am I missing something, or are people freaking out because it takes an extra mouse click? If Firefox changed the color of their icon people would be freaking out. You know this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 17:33
|
|
