Tab8715 posted:

What are you using to transfer the mailboxes?

I've seen strangely labeled folders, emails with {[,;/\ characters cause numerous issues.

Tab8715 posted:

What are you using to transfer the mailboxes?

I've seen strangely labeled folders, emails with {[,;/\ characters cause numerous issues.

SSH IT ZOMBIE posted:

Edit: As a side note, change management in general. Where I work, they have implemented a lot of ITIL processes. It seems to work really well for the applications team. Changes are requested, reviewed by a team and the larger team to assess risks, and applied to a test environment, and eventually all those changes are bundled into a release for production. Does that really work from a systems engineering perspective? The changes I make, no one else would understand or really approve or disapprove. Like putting in a new SIP - T1 VOIP gateway for faxing to replace an older model that is having issues. I install it following the manual, test it, then put it in production. Or, I did a bunch of AIX hardware migrations. Migrated the test system first, then production systems. I have no peers to bounce these things off of. Our team is under fire for not following the larger organizations' processes. But they don't seem to make sense for our team. Our changes are a lot less wide reaching, they affect single systems, and are more or less vendor supplied. There's nothing to bundle or release, most changes are standalone. The only thing that probably is important is that we track dates for when changes are made, if something does break we can tie it back to a change.

SSH IT ZOMBIE posted:

Edit: As a side note, change management in general. Where I work, they have implemented a lot of ITIL processes. It seems to work really well for the applications team. Changes are requested, reviewed by a team and the larger team to assess risks, and applied to a test environment, and eventually all those changes are bundled into a release for production. Does that really work from a systems engineering perspective? The changes I make, no one else would understand or really approve or disapprove. Like putting in a new SIP - T1 VOIP gateway for faxing to replace an older model that is having issues. I install it following the manual, test it, then put it in production. Or, I did a bunch of AIX hardware migrations. Migrated the test system first, then production systems. I have no peers to bounce these things off of. Our team is under fire for not following the larger organizations' processes. But they don't seem to make sense for our team. Our changes are a lot less wide reaching, they affect single systems, and are more or less vendor supplied. There's nothing to bundle or release, most changes are standalone. The only thing that probably is important is that we track dates for when changes are made, if something does break we can tie it back to a change.

mayodreams posted:

the user is always an idiot and lying

Docjowles posted:

(Before anyone jumps down my throat, I firmly believe that IT is a customer service role and you should not be an adversarial dick, it's just a joke).

Dark Helmut posted:

The recruiter is always an idiot and lying

myron cope posted:

I don't know what's involved in transitioning to office 365 but it's so far been pretty painful for us. About 10 or so mailboxes move a (week)night and then they spend the entire next day getting the peoples phones and computers actually working again. It's totally in sysadmin hands though, I have nothing to do with it.

A lot of times when a person is switched they don't get certain emails because a lot of reports and whatnot are hardcoded go to an @exchange.company address and need to go to @company and it takes a while to even find them all.

I've been on 365 for a while now and it's cool. They just got Lync working a little bit ago and it's neat but mine hangs a bunch. Checking event viewer shows sidebyside errors so I don't know what's happening. It's pretty cool though, as far as messaging goes.

Dark Helmut posted:

The recruiter is always an idiot and lying

Fiendish Dr. Wu posted:

Man, I've had some interesting conversations / cold calls since updating my resume and putting it out there. I recently asked a guy that called me, "Did you actually look at my resume at all?" the other day. Not trying to be a jerk or have an attitude either, but honestly with the questions he was asking me you could tell he didn't give the resume a single look-over. He actually told me, "Sorry I'm not too familiar with these IT type roles, it's all kind of new to me."

Dark Helmut posted:

These are the guys everyone hates universally. The kid right out of school that the big agencies hire and stick on the phone to see if they can make it work. It's a model that works for them, hire 10 recruiters fresh out of school and the top 2 or 3 will make it. Meanwhile the rest make us all look like shitheads.

/rant

Docjowles posted:

The current thread title is too good. But next time it reboots, this is a contender.

(Before anyone jumps down my throat, I firmly believe that IT is a customer service role and you should not be an adversarial dick, it's just a joke).

MagnumOpus posted:

I had an odd recruiter experience recently and I wonder if you can shed some light on it. I'd interviewed at a large-ish company for a contractor role on a new team. I come out of the interview with a positive feeling and receive good feedback from the recruiter. Couple days later I am told they actually want to hire me full-time rather than contractor. This is where it gets odd. Suddenly the recruiter starts being evasive and I can't get any details. Every conversation is "They definitely want you but their process takes time". After a week of this I (truthfully) let them know that I have other interview processes wrapping up and expect to have some offers by the end of the week.

This is where they let slip that there's a small problem. Their client has a policy where for contractor positions the hiring manager can use any staffing firm they wish. For full-time positions however, like they now wanted to offer me, the client is required to work through another firm (Randstad). I was told that this was "Making things tricky" so it "might take some more time to work things out". Sure enough the week came and went without any more movement, so I took another offer.

My assumption is that these recruiters were stalling my process until they could figure out how they were getting paid, since my hiring was going to have to go to Randstad. Does that sound about right?

SSH IT ZOMBIE posted:

Docjowles posted:

Important rule of email troubleshooting: the chance that the root cause is "user typed the wrong loving email address" is directly proportional to how loudly they declare that they definitely typed the right email address.

meanieface posted:

She also told me to pad my time when I give estimates for how long any work will take. I've been doing that, but not to the extent she suggested -- and it's a good point. I'd rather people be pleasantly surprised than me working the unplanned night shift because I opened my big mouth and set a date that didn't have enough contingency.

CapMoron posted:

I don't know if this thread is the right place to ask, but there are like 3 IT threads so here goes.

I have a project at work to help cull some of the decade plus data sitting on our Windows file servers that hasn't been accessed in a decent amount of time. Googling has indicated that a Powershell script would probably be best. The problem is that I know next to nothing about Powershell. It is on my to-learn list, but I'm currently enrolled in WGU, so my brain's in depth learning bandwidth is maxed by my current courses.

I found a script that works pretty well:

Function Get-NeglectedFiles

code:

{

 Param([string[]]$path,

       [int]$numberDays)

 $cutOffDate = (Get-Date).AddDays(-$numberDays)

 Get-ChildItem -recurse -Path $path |

 Where-Object {$_.LastAccessTime -le $cutOffDate}

}

The problem is that there is so much data that is nested in subdirectories upon subdirectories, that it is hitting the 248 character pathtoolong issue. Is there a better way to do this, or a non-complicated way around the path limit, or am I just hosed?

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

This is an ok place to get some ideas for a non-powershell solution, but I'd you really want it to work, try here:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3286440

Dark Helmut posted:

Yeah, that sounds absolutely right. It's lovely on the client side for having the agency do all that work only to yank the rug out from under them and want to hire you full time. The agency (and your recruiter) are right to expect compensation for that and having a policy where they can just go "Oops, I want to hire this person directly so F you I'm going through Randstad" would pretty much ensure that I would only let this happen one time before not working with the client again.

With that said, this is an example of when you can tell if the recruiter has your best interests in mind. Stalling a bit or taking some time to see if they can get things worked out, maybe cut a deal with Randstad, etc, would all be pretty normal, but taking a week when you are actively looking and interviewing seems a bit much from what you are telling me. No one likes to leave money on the table, especially after doing all the work behind getting a good candidate lined up for a good job, but at the end of the day I will always try not to stand between someone and a job they are a good fit for. I may lose in the short term, but I'll gain the candidate's trust and hopefully referrals as well as future business. Not to mention, assuming this isn't a regular practice for the client, this is an opportunity for that agency to show them they have the client's interests in mind and if it's a good client they will realize they screwed the agency and will throw them a bone in the near future in the form of an exclusive opportunity or lead time on a few positions before they are released to others.

MagnumOpus posted:

How common are these exclusive contracts for placing full-time employers? When I've had hire/fire roles in the past there have been preferred staffing firms suggested, but I've never seen or heard of such a contractual obligation.

Tab8715 posted:

I'm a little unsure of what you're referring too but it's pretty common to have anti-ratholing policies in place. If you're hired for a contract-gig you can't bounce to become an FTE in X amount of years or go directly work for a customer, etc

MagnumOpus posted:

That's good to know, thanks. All of this sounds perfectly reasonable, and if they'd just been up front with me I bet we could have all worked something out.

How common are these exclusive contracts for placing full-time employers? When I've had hire/fire roles in the past there have been preferred staffing firms suggested, but I've never seen or heard of such a contractual obligation.

psydude posted:

Would it be a good idea to abandon, or at least postpone, the MS for the time being to focus on the CCIE?

Richard Noggin posted:

I'd ask in the Cisco short questions thread. Don't let the title mislead you, it's general networking too.

fluppet posted:

Would infrastructure manager not be a better as a catch all title?

Tab8715 posted:

What's with HR/Recruiter goons randomly friending me on LinkedIn?