Strangely, i'm getting read receipts from the iPhone, even when the original message doesn't have 'request read receipt' selected...

I don't use iPhone, does iOS 11 have any setting that just send a 'read' receipt anyway?

Hey Folks,

I have previously setup a rule in Office 365 to remove 'Disposition-Notification-To' header on all emails for one director.

With the Outlook desktop client you get the option to send the read response or not. Mobiles just respond without asking - hence the need for creating this rule...

The rule has been working for around 1 year, no issues at all. Now, the director has upgraded to iOS 11 from iOS 10, the same rule is still in place, but read receipts are now automatically being sent by the iPhone as emails are opened. Previously, it worked.

Has anybody else seen this? Looking at the email properties I can see that the header 'Disposition-Notification-To' has been removed correctly, yet the response is still sent.

Has anybody seen this? Any ideas?

Best,
Jim

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

Its not good to assume those with a lab are more learned than those without who have actual real work experience. Its not good to assume the home lab gave good quality knowledge etc.

Agreed, never suggested otherwise. Same thing goes for work experience. Having work experience doesn't tell us that someone is more learned than someone with a home lab or that what they learned was quality (or even right.)

Yes it does. If its not quality work, or right, they would SHOULD have a history of being fired or are unemployed repeatedly, with no good references other than a statement of employment.

Not in the real world. Companies rarely hire or fire based on those criteria. For one, because it is costly and difficult to do so. Second because if they have a track record of bad hiring, they likely know that replacing that person will be hard. Third, if they can't determine with any reliability before hiring if someone is good, they probably don't know what good or bad IT work looks like so have no idea that they are bad.

You are assuming some idyllic world where hiring is free, firing is simple, and gauging quality on the job is easy. None of these things are true in the real world.

In the UK this is one of the most frequent things that prevent somebody from being employed. If you have gaps on the CV, only records of employment rather than good reviews etc, that will stop the job offer. Not a lab.

@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

Them having a home lab has no basis to prove they will be good or bad at any job.

Never said it did - but it shows interest and self motivation, which are critical things in IT.

The fact they are after the job in IT shows that they have interest and self motivation. Otherwise they would be looking for a job in healthcare, or sports or whatever else.

THis is incorrect. That's not how looking for jobs works.

No, of course. People only look for jobs they have no interest in right Scott...

That's not good logic. You made the obviously false assumption that all people only apply to jobs about which they are passionate. You then respond with the utterly illogical conclusion that if that is untrue that all people must do the opposite.

Not all water is clear, therefore all water is murky?

If you are not passionate then it will be clear within the probation and you will be gone. Its not a good position to be in to assume from the get go that only those with a lab are passionate. Its not good to assume those with a lab are more learned than those without who have actual real work experience. Its not good to assume the home lab gave good quality knowledge etc.

A home lab is not relevant.

Think about this - If you have a job where you have to support KVM, that only tells a person that because of your job, you know something about KVM. BUT, if you have a KVM setup at home, you KNOW this person cared enough to learn about KVM on their own, and that it's likely they have passion about it. You can't know about passion from a person who does a job for pay.

The fact that they have a job needing KVM and have not been fired, thereby showing they can gain knowledge and get the job done, shows what I need to know. Having a home lab doesnt show me anything.

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

If you are not passionate then it will be clear within the probation and you will be gone.

Obviously this isn't true. We know that most people in IT aren't passionate at all about it. And how would a normal company gauge passion in the probation period? That's not reasonable to assume is even remotely possible. In the US, in the SMB there is no understanding of IT or passion, in the enterprise you rarely even get system access during a probationary period, you just sit in a room waiting for access. Nothing to gauge.

Because either they have developed and can do the work, or they cant. Here a probation is 6 months. If you cant tell that somebody can do that in 6 months, the company is missing something important.

Sure, but companies that hire randomly and hope to determine on the job if someone is good and passionate would be exactly the kinds of companies that wouldn't have the ability to determine that in six months, or ever.

Why would you ever want to look for this after hiring rather than before? Hiring is expensive, don't do it badly on purpose.

Hiring somebody with 'x' years experience is not random at all. Deciding not to hire that person as they don't have a home lab is petty - that's what I'm saying here. Having the lab is no basis for me.

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

Its not good to assume those with a lab are more learned than those without who have actual real work experience. Its not good to assume the home lab gave good quality knowledge etc.

Agreed, never suggested otherwise. Same thing goes for work experience. Having work experience doesn't tell us that someone is more learned than someone with a home lab or that what they learned was quality (or even right.)

Yes it does. If its not quality work, or right, they would SHOULD have a history of being fired or are unemployed repeatedly, with no good references other than a statement of employment.

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

If you are not passionate then it will be clear within the probation and you will be gone.

Obviously this isn't true. We know that most people in IT aren't passionate at all about it. And how would a normal company gauge passion in the probation period? That's not reasonable to assume is even remotely possible. In the US, in the SMB there is no understanding of IT or passion, in the enterprise you rarely even get system access during a probationary period, you just sit in a room waiting for access. Nothing to gauge.

Because either they have developed and can do the work, or they cant. Here a probation is 6 months. If you cant tell that somebody can do that in 6 months, the company is missing something important.

@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

Them having a home lab has no basis to prove they will be good or bad at any job.

I'd say it is the largest indicator that we have in the industry. Nothing guarantees that someone will be good. But nothing is a better indicator. Home labs show passion and initiative. Nothing else really does.

Having the desire to get that foot in the door and that first IT job also shows passion and initiative.

eh? Not really. That's only showing a desire to get a paycheck.

Far easier jobs exist for a paycheck. The fact they chose IT shows a desire to get a paycheck in IT. We all desire a paycheck.

Far easier than level 1 tech? That's pretty basic. Learning to be efficient at flipping burgers isn't as easy as it sounds. Actually mopping floors and doing a good job does take real effort.

I was using level 1 as an example. Going from level 'x', to level 'z', over 'y' number of years working for 'a' employers with good references shows you can learn. Having a home lab shows you have a home lab. It doesnt show what you learned is quality.

@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

If they say they know the material from a home lab, that's not good or bad. Its not relevant.

Or it's the most relevant. I'll take someone with home lab experience on something over someone with work experience on the same thing.

Not me, that lab experience could have given them so much crap in their heads. You have no idea on what they've actually picked up from their study at home where having credible work experience does show they have more use than a 'lab'.

Yep, I setup a lab for learning about storage at home. Actually, what they learned was: 'I learned that Raid 5 is awesome as it gives me so much space with large drives'. < No, pass. Take the person that shows they have experience in the field and can learn things properly.

Learn things properly? Seriously? How does one do that? Seriously I'd like to know. Just look at Spiceworks - so many people are apparently learning improperly it's amazing, and they claim to get much of it from their jobs. So what exactly is the correct way of learning?

People go through trial and error and learn. Yes, lots of morons on SW. I'm not debating that.

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

Them having a home lab has no basis to prove they will be good or bad at any job.

Never said it did - but it shows interest and self motivation, which are critical things in IT.

The fact they are after the job in IT shows that they have interest and self motivation. Otherwise they would be looking for a job in healthcare, or sports or whatever else.

THis is incorrect. That's not how looking for jobs works.

No, of course. People only look for jobs they have no interest in right Scott...

That's not good logic. You made the obviously false assumption that all people only apply to jobs about which they are passionate. You then respond with the utterly illogical conclusion that if that is untrue that all people must do the opposite.

Not all water is clear, therefore all water is murky?

If you are not passionate then it will be clear within the probation and you will be gone. Its not a good position to be in to assume from the get go that only those with a lab are passionate. Its not good to assume those with a lab are more learned than those without who have actual real work experience. Its not good to assume the home lab gave good quality knowledge etc.

A home lab is not relevant.

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

Them having a home lab has no basis to prove they will be good or bad at any job.

Never said it did - but it shows interest and self motivation, which are critical things in IT.

The fact they are after the job in IT shows that they have interest and self motivation. Otherwise they would be looking for a job in healthcare, or sports or whatever else.

THis is incorrect. That's not how looking for jobs works.

No, of course. People only look for jobs they have no interest in right Scott...

@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

Them having a home lab has no basis to prove they will be good or bad at any job.

I'd say it is the largest indicator that we have in the industry. Nothing guarantees that someone will be good. But nothing is a better indicator. Home labs show passion and initiative. Nothing else really does.

Having the desire to get that foot in the door and that first IT job also shows passion and initiative.

eh? Not really. That's only showing a desire to get a paycheck.

Far easier jobs exist for a paycheck. The fact they chose IT shows a desire to get a paycheck in IT. We all desire a paycheck.

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

If they say they know the material from a home lab, that's not good or bad. Its not relevant.

Or it's the most relevant. I'll take someone with home lab experience on something over someone with work experience on the same thing.

Not me, that lab experience could have given them so much crap in their heads. You have no idea on what they've actually picked up from their study at home where having credible work experience does show they have more use than a 'lab'.

Yep, I setup a lab for learning about storage at home. Actually, what they learned was: 'I learned that Raid 5 is awesome as it gives me so much space with large drives'. < No, pass. Take the person that shows they have experience in the field and can learn things properly.

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

Let's reverse it and look at things from the company's perspective - why pay to train someone during company time for a new job or role when there are loads of people out there, maybe external or elsewhere internally in larger companies, that already know the material...

If they know the material from being employed and doing the job, yep that's good. Like I said, learn on the job when its needed.

I think that herein lies the conflict. For your career "it is needed" comes "before the job". You can't learn on the job when it is needed, because those two things don't really coexist.

The same as learning 20 things in case 1 comes up is a waste of time; go spend it directly with family.

@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

Them having a home lab has no basis to prove they will be good or bad at any job.

Never said it did - but it shows interest and self motivation, which are critical things in IT.

The fact they are after the job in IT shows that they have interest and self motivation. Otherwise they would be looking for a job in healthcare, or sports or whatever else.

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

Them having a home lab has no basis to prove they will be good or bad at any job.

I'd say it is the largest indicator that we have in the industry. Nothing guarantees that someone will be good. But nothing is a better indicator. Home labs show passion and initiative. Nothing else really does.

Having the desire to get that foot in the door and that first IT job also shows passion and initiative.

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

Let's reverse it and look at things from the company's perspective - why pay to train someone during company time for a new job or role when there are loads of people out there, maybe external or elsewhere internally in larger companies, that already know the material...

If they know the material from being employed and doing the job, yep that's good. Like I said, learn on the job when its needed.

If they say they know the material from a home lab, that's not good or bad. Its not relevant. Somebody saying they have a home lab regarding a subject doens't actually mean they know about the subject. Having a year of experience having learned something at work, or for work when actually needed likely does mean they know the subject.

Them having a home lab has no basis to prove they will be good or bad at any job.

@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@dafyre said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

YAGNI.

That's a good principle, but doesn't apply to education

Heh, indeed. Although, it somewhat does. If i'm not going to need it, its not useful to learn. If a job requires it, at that point i'd spend time learning it - quite possibly in my own time. But before then, no point.

What if you couldn't get the job without already knowing (or at least having a basic understanding of) it?

At THAT time i'd either learn this, like I did say, or not apply.

It's to late to learn it then.. they are hiring now - it might take you months or years to learn it.. by then the job is long gone.

It doesn't sit well with me to sit and learn things in my own time, taking months or years to learn, where I do not know if a job will ever arise needing it. l Like I said: YAGNI.

Then how will you ever progress? If you are a Windows desktop support person how do you move up to network engineer? Most companies won't educate you on that so you can get a job at that company doing that... you have to self learn at least the basics... then show them you know it to get a promotion, or move to a new company with certs showing you at least know basics... etc.
You don't just wake up tomorrow and have a job supporting VMWare clusters when yesterday you only knew about Windows desktop machine support.

For somebody to go from no job, to a having 1 year 1st line, then 1 year 2nd Line, all documented on CV, shows that they learn. Their experience shows you that somehow manage to learn what they need to know and are able to progress. You should not assume its impossible for them without a lab.

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@dafyre said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:

YAGNI.

That's a good principle, but doesn't apply to education

Heh, indeed. Although, it somewhat does. If i'm not going to need it, its not useful to learn. If a job requires it, at that point i'd spend time learning it - quite possibly in my own time. But before then, no point.

What if you couldn't get the job without already knowing (or at least having a basic understanding of) it?

At THAT time i'd either learn this, like I did say, or not apply.

It's to late to learn it then.. they are hiring now - it might take you months or years to learn it.. by then the job is long gone.

It doesn't sit well with me to sit and learn things in my own time, taking months or years to learn, where I do not know if a job will ever arise needing it. l Like I said: YAGNI.

But all IT uses all IT. That's kind of the point. The more you know, the better you can do the jobs. Within reason, of course.

I don't need a lab to enable me to have enough of an overview to be able to make decisions. A lab enables me to know something inside and out with enough time give, and IMO, no point going in such depth unless its actually needed.