@scottalanmiller said:
That's for generic relay, if you want authenticated relay, you can do more config steps and make Postfix sign into O365 or Gmail or whatever.
I can see how the Linux relay could point to O365, I'm having difficulty seeing how a copier would point to the Linux relay. Like if you had 2 copiers, and 2 different relays (maybe not practical, just seeing how you could have a copier be pointed at that specific relay).
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
How does that work...? I'm trying to think of the steps.
You do a generic install, CentOS 7 Minimal, for example. You open port 25 to the LAN and you set the Postfix settings to allow local relay. That's it. Nothing to install. One firewall port to open. One config line to change. Done.
So then when you scan to email from the copier... it's going to look on the local LAN for 25, find the Linux relay, the relay points to the hosted instance of Exchange...?
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
Not very practical on premise... there is not enough space in this thread to say how impractical it is on premise. The only thing we would lose is the relay, with copiers doing a send to email. Having Exchange hosted, we've found supporting articles and I believe a couple MS engineers, saying we would have significant issues so we steered away from that.
Relays are trivial. That's not a reason to not go hosted. If you really need a relay, that's a tiny project on Linux.
How does that work...? I'm trying to think of the steps.
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
I'm not against switching by any means. Especially to Zimbra. But they can't bash something like that without providing an alternative. That's just ignorant.
I don't know that I agree. Knowing that something doesn't work well doesn't require knowing what does work well.
But they should at least have something to compare it to if they are suggesting we switch to something else. Haha this person is so incredibly rude 100% of the time, I am not giving them the benefit of the doubt on ANY level. 
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
I did get the comment "Exchange is so stupid. Why do we even use that buggy system?" The hell are we expected to run?
Well, to be fair, Exchange is difficult to use, very expensive and not very practical on premises. They might not know the name of the products, but Zimbra is the big player and MDaemon has been around and @axigen is up and coming. And Apple might even have an offering.
And especially if you are using IMAP, that makes the others often better options.
I'm not against switching by any means. Especially to Zimbra. But they can't bash something like that without providing an alternative. That's just ignorant.
Exchange really doesn't cost us that much anymore. It's like $700 for the server license and the CALs are like $75-85 apiece for roughly 150 people. It has support from Microsoft if we ever need it (we've needed it once in 5 years for an issue caused by updates, which they fixed for free).
Level of difficulty... no comment.
Not very practical on premise... there is not enough space in this thread to say how impractical it is on premise. The only thing we would lose is the relay, with copiers doing a send to email. Having Exchange hosted, we've found supporting articles and I believe a couple MS engineers, saying we would have significant issues so we steered away from that.
@Jason said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
I did get the comment "Exchange is so stupid. Why do we even use that buggy system?" The hell are we expected to run?
Well, to be fair, Exchange is difficult to use, very expensive and not very practice on premises. They might not know the name of the products, but Zimbra is the big player and MDaemon has been around and @axigen is up and coming. And Apple might even have an offering.
And something is wrong if the contracts say you have to run it on site. That's just dumb. Even our highly secretive stuff, that we get that can only be referred to by code names do not say dumb stuff like that. Clients don't dictate internal IT infrastructure.
They do when they dump in millions of dollars, pulling said contracts could tank the business.
But it isn't that way anymore. We could lose any one big contract and survive. But there are so many contracts that require it, it would be impossible for us to get it approved. They are not as secretive as yours. Couldn't tell you why it's that way. I know part of it is company policy not because of contracts, but because we have a lot of proprietary telco designs/gear/etc. All the designs around my desk all have stuff on them that say what happens if they get leaked.
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
@aaron said:
I have no problems with Apple Mail using Gmail domains and Outlook.com (I realize that's not technically Exchange) -- but they are done via IMAP.
Is the user using IMAP instead of Exchange protocol? The Exchange protocol is very weirdly inconsistent to me unless you are only using MS products.
We are all using Exchange.
Exchange does IMAP like all modern email systems. Has too, it is the universal mailbox protocol.
Yeah I didn't really understand the question cause we're using IMAP on Exchange. Maybe I should have asked @aaron to elaborate.
There are two protocols in question. The mailbox protocol (IMAP or Exchange native or ActiveSync) and the format of the email.
If she emails herself, does it stay mangled? If she emails a Gmail account, does it stay mangled?
It's mangled no matter what because it passes through Exchange. What she could have done was connect another account that isn't tied to Exchange and try that. I sent an email just saying that I found attaching the attachment to the bottom of the email solved the problem, that Apple Mail is noted by Apple and Microsoft as being problematic with Exchange, and that Outlook has the highest compatibility.
Called it a day. If I have to defend myself, I don't care. I'm not gonna let the company waste more money on fixing stupid issues when the execs use Outlook and not Apple Mail.
I did get the comment "Exchange is so stupid. Why do we even use that buggy system?" The hell are we expected to run? The person asking that couldn't name one other on premise (required) email system as an alternative to Exchange. As soon as I heard the word "Gmail...." I just cut them off and said our big contracts forbid hosting internal communication. Continued arguing.
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
@aaron said:
I have no problems with Apple Mail using Gmail domains and Outlook.com (I realize that's not technically Exchange) -- but they are done via IMAP.
Is the user using IMAP instead of Exchange protocol? The Exchange protocol is very weirdly inconsistent to me unless you are only using MS products.
We are all using Exchange.
Exchange does IMAP like all modern email systems. Has too, it is the universal mailbox protocol.
Yeah I didn't really understand the question cause we're using IMAP on Exchange. Maybe I should have asked @aaron to elaborate.
@IRJ said:
This is how I do it.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-Zj7y7G1-C_aGFCeFI1Vzk4Zzh1eHN3ZDY3Rkg5YXVscDg0
I am having trouble uploading that image for some reason on ML. If someone could upload it for me, that would be great.
Good work around I guess. So you schedule it to redeploy then? We add lots of servers to our environment regularly, so a persistent change is necessary to always make sure a server is changing the local admin, in case it is needed.
@dafyre said:
Could you deploy a powershell script and have that execute?
I considered that. Drop it into a scheduled task somewhere. But that's not as central as having a persistent GPO. That was unsecure, I get that. But to completely undo that process instead of making it more secure? That sucks. I know convenience and security need a balance. But you should give the option of central management and just have a "beware: this is unsecure" kind of move. Or release a tool that is very similar. I'm installing LAPS on a management server. Anyone tried it?
@wirestyle22 said:
I don't know you man but if some random guy on a forum (me) wants more for you
Well that was a damn nice thing to say. Thanks, I appreciate that.
@IRJ Doesn't look like Netwrix is going to be able to do what we need, nearly as easily as deploying a GPO to the server OU.
@IRJ said:
Microsoft took this feature away a while ago...
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/srd/2014/05/13/ms14-025-an-update-for-group-policy-preferences/
Thaaat really sucks. How is everyone else doing that same function anymore?
@IRJ said:
What is the point of being hired as an IT professional and having to explain yourself for something so trivial?
I often ask myself that very question.
@aaron said:
I have no problems with Apple Mail using Gmail domains and Outlook.com (I realize that's not technically Exchange) -- but they are done via IMAP.
Is the user using IMAP instead of Exchange protocol? The Exchange protocol is very weirdly inconsistent to me unless you are only using MS products.
We are all using Exchange.
@Jason said:
Sounds like your company has bad management.
I mean I can't bad mouth them on here. They treat us fairly well... There's just some stuff I would rather have done differently so we could get around these type of situations with a little less pain.
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
I just want to be prepared because I've saw people get fired for less.
You keep supporting what I said. So he's irrational and emotional and lashes out at people for doing a good job?
It's not so much about him as it is the marketing manager. She has been so rude to me since the day I started. The CEO only gets involved when she complains. Knowing him, he just wants her to use whatever she wants, and have it work. Also, to keep her from complaining. That's just from what I've figured anyway...
