You do recall that Susan is no longer involved with that list and that I am now the moderator? All members of the list are under signed NDA with Microsoft. Microsoft's stance is that product groups can post but should not post NDA information to any non-Microsoft owned list. Even so, neither the ISA or IAG groups post to the Microsoft private MVP newsgroups. They are a quiet bunch. Other MVP lists that I'm on get lots of posts, questions, and response from the PM's and from PSS. The communication from this team is seriously lacking. I brought this up with several people and the response I get is essentially that communicating with the community isn't in their job description and they see no reason to change it. After all MVP's are customers. We're just champions; what ever that means. Amy Babinchak Harbor Computer Services ISA MVP, Small Business Specialist, MCP ISA: http://isainsbs.blogspot.com for Clients: http://smalltechnotes.blogspot.com Website: http://www.harborcomputerservices.net ________________________________ From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas W Shinder Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 11:51 AM To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks It's been a real problem for the ISA PG to work with the ISA MVPs, because they think that the ISA MVPs are still involved with the ISA MVP mailing list. I explained to them that because of "issues" with that list that there was less than optimal participation and that they needed to get a MS managed solution. At the very least, they could create their own DL and send mail to people on that list. I hate missing out on the ISA PGs communications on that "other" list, but my life is so much better not having to listen to the ****** that happens over there. Thomas W Shinder, M.D. Site: www.isaserver.org <http://www.isaserver.org/> Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/ Book: http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7 MVP -- Microsoft Firewalls (ISA) ________________________________ From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thor (Hammer of God) Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 8:56 AM To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks I spoke with Melissa Travers, the MVP Lead for both ISA and Exchange, and she said the Exchange group's MVP site was really, really good, and that the Exchange group themselves is quite active. Being they are the Exchange group, I can see why they would have a decent portal. ;) I suggested that if there were a single sourced, Microsoft controlled MVP site where we could "browse through" other MVP list content, that issues like this (the perceptions surrounding what Exchange will and won't support and why) would be much easier to manage, and that "the right people" from both sides could engage each other in a positive way when two technologies collide like this. To me, this is a major shortcoming in the MVP program overall. Given the fact that the MVP program was created in order to provide a collaborative environment for various technologies, it seems like a horrible waste of a perfect opportunity to expand that environment out to the MVP's and product teams in other product competencies. The fate of the ISA-MVP list is testament to that. So, in the absence of a coordinated effort on Microsoft's part to wrap it's collective arms around the MVP's and product teams, I'll see if I can get on the Exchange MVP list and begin a dialog of exactly what is going on here. But I'll need to get immersed in Ex2007 first, which I've just not had the time to do. The promise of true unified messaging in 2007 was a major draw to me, but given the apparent narrow PBX support and lack of official functionality documentation, the rush to explore has lost it's luster. t On 2/26/07 6:02 AM, "Jim Harrison" <Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx> spoketh to all: Documentation always follows the product, which is barely on the streets. I've seen some regarding WM6, but the basic concepts are the same. ..coming soon to a website near you... From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] <mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx%5d> On Behalf Of Jason Jones Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 3:31 AM To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks Hi All, Anyone (Tim?) had chance to look at the least privilige approach with Exchange 2007 yet? From what I am hearing the "CAS not supported in perimeter" statement is based more on "we haven't tested it yet" more than "we don't think it is a good idea". I have a few customers looking at placing the entire Exchange architecture behind ISA (very untrusted LANs) - I have done this with Exch2k3, but has anyone looked at this for Exch2k7? I am guessing this is not supported either, but documentation is very thin on the ground with reference to 2k7 and periemeter networking.... Cheers JJ ________________________________ From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] <mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx%5d> On Behalf Of Thor (Hammer of God) Sent: 15 January 2007 15:27 To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks Right you are... The analogy fits when you use "comparative logic" as opposed to just thinking of the zone in singularity... Compared to the areas on either side of the DMZ, it should be easy to discern any activity at all in the DMZ itself- particularly hostile activities. There are strict policies about what can go on in the Korean DMZ, as there should be in one's network DMZ. Internet traffic is chaotic, and I don't even bother trying to determine what is going on out on my Internet segment- I can't control it anyway (other than my policy of implementing router ACL's to match inbound/outbound traffic policies at my border router). Internal traffic isn't chaotic, but it is hard to monitor for "hostile" packets given the sheer volume and type of traffic being generated by internal users, servers, services, etc to any number of different hosts and clients. But in the DMZ, you should be able to immediately notice when something out of the ordinary is going on. For instance, if I see POP3 logon traffic, I know something is FUBAR, as I don't support POP3 in my DMZ at all. If I see modal enumeration by way of a null session, I know something is going on. And etc, etc. So, to me, it fits, and that is the term I choose to use. I won't be changing ;) t On 1/15/07 6:40 AM, "Gerald G. Young" <g.young@xxxxxxxx> spoketh to all: The DMZ in Korea itself isn't crawling with military. Either side of it is, ensuring that the definition of a demilitarized zone is observed and maintained. Before the advent of DMZs in networking, a DMZ meant an area from which military forces, operations, and installations were prohibited. Essentially, it's a wide empty area that constitutes a border with forces on either side pointing guns into it. I've always thought the adaptation of the acronym to the world of networking a bit strange. "Oh! We got activity in our networked DMZ! Kill it!" :-) Cordially yours, Jerry G. Young II Product Engineer - Senior Platform Engineering, Enterprise Hosting NTT America, an NTT Communications Company 22451 Shaw Rd. Sterling, VA 20166 Office: 571-434-1319 Fax: 703-333-6749 Email: g.young@xxxxxxxx From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] <mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx%5d> On Behalf Of Amy Babinchak Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 7:08 PM To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks That's what it means to me too. Can't see the Korean no mans' land as qualifying as a DMZ when it's crawling with military. In this conversation we have to take into consideration that CAS also includes the capability to provide access to folders and files right in OWA. This may be the thing that the Exchange team thinks throws a monkey wrench into the secure deployment of CAS in a a DMZ. ________________________________ From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Jason Jones Sent: Sat 1/13/2007 6:46 PM To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks For me, DMZ means scary place completely untrusted, perimeter network means less scary place trusted to a degree, but strongly controlled ________________________________ From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] <mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx%5d> On Behalf Of Thor (Hammer of God) Sent: 12 January 2007 23:51 To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks Interesting... Probably a good idea for us to actually articulate what we really mean when we say DMZ. I guess to some it means "free for all network" but for me, it should be the network where you have the most restrictive policies controlling each service so that it is obvious when malicious traffic hits the wire. Thoughts> t On 1/12/07 3:30 PM, "Steve Moffat" <steve@xxxxxxxxxx> spoketh to all: That's what I thought, now it's what I know.... From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] <mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx%5d> On Behalf Of Jim Harrison Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 6:35 PM To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks Aside from normal router & switch ACLs, ISA is the single line of defense. "..we don't need no stinking DMZs" From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] <mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx%5d> On Behalf Of Steve Moffat Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 12:12 PM To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks Ahh...just had a thought. It's all labeling. Jason, and others (not Jason's fault), have been using the term DMZ. Historically, is the term DMZ not taken literally as being completely firewalled off from the trusted networks, and what Jason is talking about is trusted network segmentation. I betcha that's why the Exchange team don't support it...they think it's a typical run of the mill DMZ... Jim, isn't MS's Internal network segmented by usin ISA?? Including your mail servers? S All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned. All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.