@ajstringham said:

@Hubtech It might be the perfect time. Change everything over. Don't get everything squared away with one system to have to go back and redo it later.

Agreed.. but make sure that O365 will solve your problem first.

@Hubtech said:

cost of implementation is what most of my clients say. while i don't have any full hospitals, I've got several 30-100 employee clinics that are always slow to adopt. but when they do, they usually go all in

Do your clinics have budgets? I mean real live budgets for IT or anything? Of course, to me, one of the best is an accural type where they are always saving for the next purchase so they have cash on hand when time comes... but who knows..

I guess it's like speeding, it's clearly against the law, but until you are caught you do it anyway - and if the fine isn't enough to make you care, you'll definitely do it again.

I completely agree - I wonder when the HIPAA police are going to come down on all these health systems that have super old systems.

This probably explains the real reason so my health systems in my town are moving to Epic - they have to for HIPAA compliance.

I am using 20+ character totally random passwords - can't cut and paste into the VMWare view of the server - once I moved over to using PUTTY cut and paste has saved me.

Here you go

http://www.scottalanmiller.com/linux/2012/11/20/installing-mediawiki-on-centos-6/

Wow.. OK it's been a rough one - Even with Scott's instructions it took me the better part of a day to get CentOS up and running with MediaWiki 1.19.

But, finally, it is running and I've already installed my first extension: Poem.

Test unsubscribe...

@ajstringham said:

@IRJ From what I've seen, hitting the up arrow button next to the Favorite button on a post increases reputation. The favorite is for bookmarking for your own personal use/reference.

I just tried this, and you're right.. the rep is based on the +1 -1, not the favorites (American spelling)

English you say.. lol

I'm not sure I understand - what's the difference between the Favorite and the + or minus 1?

I brought all of this up originally thinking that it might make life easier for IT admins if devices like Unitrends box or a fax gateway utilized full SMTP, thinking that you wouldn't have to build accounts on the email server of the company to get those messages because they were only ever incoming. But in thinking about it... you'd probably want the email address to appear to be coming from a specific address that is on your own network, and the good email servers probably deny emails from it's own domain from none authenticated devices... so it's all a moot point.

@scottalanmiller said:

@ajstringham said:

@Dashrender You're talking about using a program that you use to view email as a server. Outlook is basically just a GUI to Exchange or whoever's email you're connecting. What you're saying just makes no sense. I'm sorry.

Only sort of. Outlook is only unable to send SMTP as hoc peer to peer because it uses a single SMTP destination rather than an MX lookup. Or is a few lines of code away from doing that. But doing so would obviously be bad.

Exactly. Now I can see how this would be bad from a business perspective, but from a consumer one I don't necessarily agree.

The reason I think the consumer should have the option is because of the possibility of censorship. Your ISP's SMTP server gets to choose what is and isn't forwarded on. If you take them out of it, you gain that control back.

FYI I'm a pretty big personal rights person.

@ajstringham UH WHAT? I'm not sure how adhoc AD came into this?

email is a point to point protocol - sent by you to one or more other points. When you send an email from your Outlook client it goes to an Exchange server who then makes a MX call for the destination server, then connects to said server, who then waits for their client to pick up the mail.

My question is, Why does Outlook (or any end user client) need to send to a local(ish) server first (i.e. Exchange or your ISP's email server, etc) other than providing flow control or SPF abilities or other business related requires (think saving all copies of email sent and received in a company), it isn't required. Outlook can use SMTP to send the email itself to the end users email server directly because it understand how to talk SMTP - which by default has ZERO authentication - (think about it, my exchange server does not authentic with NTG's when I send you an email. At best NTG's server checks a SPF record and allows email to come from my server based on the SPF lookup, otherwise there's no authentication what so ever.)

Now I can understand why a company would want their email clients (outlook/thunderbird, etc) to go through a centralized outbound SMTP because of the aforementioned controls it provides. But what I don't understand is why manufactures like Unitrends don't make life easy for themselves and just install a full blown SMTP server in their devices that can deliver mail without the help of an outside SMTP host/relay.
I suppose some might say - well someone could compromise that unitrends box and start using it to relay spam - is that really that much more of a risk than your Exchange server? Especially when it only sends and doesn't receive therefore there's no reason for any holes in the firewall to gain access to that box?

I could probably go on and on.. but I need to get back to solving my MediaWiki issue.

Of course this doesn't make it OK to steel. But really stealing has nothing to do with commerce either (other than drive up prices to compensate for it).
The CEO of the exchange that happened to sell BitCoin might be dead because they felt personally liable for the situation they allowed their company to be in by not being secure enough to keep the hacker at bay. Really we'll probably never know.

@ajstringham said:

@dashrender I guess I just don't understand how Gmail would go to NTG without going through an SMTP server. Are you saying that sending to [email protected] from your Gmail would just send it out and ask for NTG's SMTP info and forward from there?

Not really. Let's use your example of Gmail.
Here's a thought experiment.
Install thunderbird and configure the POP3 to Gmail, but do an MX lookup on NTG.co and use that address as your SMTP side.

Now send an email to someone at NTG - it SHOULD work (assuming there is no outbound port 25 filtering), of course sending email to anyone else won't work because the NTG server will ask you why in the world are you asking them to relay your email to another domain.

So my question is - in the case of a gmail user, why do I need to use gmail's server to 'relay' my message to the other side? Why doesn't Thunderbird (and the rest) of the client simply make their own MX lookup (just like Exchange does, etc) and send direct?

I suppose one answer would be spam. If you use a SPF record you couldn't possibly list all of the places that people might send a gmail email from, etc. Does using a relay allow for better customer service somehow (basically make it easier on providers)?

@ajstringham said:

And I know for a fact they have clients with sensitive data. I've done the setup. They had on-premise Exchange. They checked to use authentication against the email server.

Sure they use authentication, but it's probably in clear text, not over SSL/TLS.

I'm guessing that on premise Exchange does not require TLS connections from clients by default - you are suppose to enable it because Best Practices tell you to.

I know I use authentication from my copy machines to send email, etc.. but they don't support TLS either, so I know internally my clients don't have to use TLS to connect to Exchange.

@ajstringham I understand that it's P2P but the protocol Thunderbird and tons of other clients is using is called SMTP, the same that Exchange, Domino and every other email server use to send messages to each other.

If I'm using Thunderbird as an email client, I have to setup a POP3 and a SMTP server - why do I need an SMTP server setup? Why doesn't Thunderbird try to make and SMTP connection directly with the server that's responsible for the email I'm sending to? i.e. I'm sending one to you at NTG why doesn't Thunderbird do an MX lookup for NTG.CO, connect and send?

@Katie said:

@Dashrender Interesting. I wonder if the same logic works with chickens. (investigating for backyard egg production purposes)

The same logic will work on almost any living thing. There's a good training book called Don't Shoot the dog. The lesson above is basically the book in a nutshell and the author shows how it can be applied to nearly any animal or person.

She has a story about her mother-in-law and how she was able to get the mother-in-law to stop a questioning patterned that annoyed the author.

People don't like to think of their children as pets - but if parents learned how to train an animal, they'd have an infinitely easier time training their children to act the way the parents want.