[isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC Communications and ISA
- From: "Amy Babinchak" <amy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:38:51 -0400
This problem is easily overcome. First you have to define what a word is...
Amy
-----Original Message-----
From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Thor (Hammer of God)
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:35 PM
To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC Communications and ISA
This wasn't just "twisting." Kermit ruled that since the wiretap act did
not contain specific language regarding computer data "in transit" or
"stored" that the writers of the Wiretap Act specifically meant for it not
to apply in that circumstance. Those are the "Cliff Notes" of course, but
to rule on something that was *not* written was a stretch even for a Clinton
appointee.
t
On 8/15/06 7:21 PM, "Amy Babinchak" <amy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> spoketh
to all:
> That's the weakness in the English system of law that we inherited. Language
> nuance rather than common sense takes over. Recently I sat on a jury and it
> was a good thing that they picked my number to be the one that didn't go into
> deliberation; I was so disgusted with the prosecutor twisting of words and his
> obvious disrespect for the collective intelligence of the jury I would have
> done almost anything to oppose his point of view.
>
> Amy
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Thor (Hammer of God)
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:07 PM
> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC Communications and ISA
>
> Unfortunately, they're getting closer and closer. Look at what Kermit did
> with the wiretap act. Moron. Deducing legal precedence from the absolute
> *absence* of specific language in the law. Let's hope he doesn't get too
> much further. We can thank Clinton for him...
>
> t
>
>
> On 8/15/06 6:52 PM, "Amy Babinchak" <amy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> spoketh
> to all:
>
>> I like how all of the borked references are either to computers or a would be
>> supreme court justice. Don't really see how the two can be related.
>>
>> Amy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>> Behalf Of Thomas W Shinder
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:53 PM
>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC Communications and ISA
>>
>> Aha, OK, borking is quite different from horking:
>>
>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=borked
>>
>> Thomas W Shinder, M.D.
>> Site: www.isaserver.org
>> Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/
>> Book: http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7
>> MVP -- ISA Firewalls
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:41 PM
>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC Communications and ISA
>>>
>>> There is - this was a clear case of borking.
>>> That's a much more complex (and effective) form of f#$%$ing
>>> up your system.
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>> Jim Harrison
>>> MCP(NT4, W2K), A+, Network+, PCG
>>> http://isaserver.org/Jim_Harrison/
>>> http://isatools.org
>>> Read the help / books / articles!
>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas W Shinder
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 18:45
>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC Communications and ISA
>>>
>>> I figured there was an "anti-hork" feature in the ISA CSS
>>> replication engine ;)
>>>
>>> Thomas W Shinder, M.D.
>>> Site: www.isaserver.org
>>> Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/
>>> Book: http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7
>>> MVP -- ISA Firewalls
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:34 PM
>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
>>> Communications and ISA
>>>>
>>>> Replication is a wonderful thing...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Jim Harrison
>>>> MCP(NT4, W2K), A+, Network+, PCG
>>>> http://isaserver.org/Jim_Harrison/
>>>> http://isatools.org
>>>> Read the help / books / articles!
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas W Shinder
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 18:10
>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
>>> Communications and ISA
>>>>
>>>> Hey, wait a minute. There should be multiple CSSs, so did
>>> the storage
>>>> get horked on all of them?
>>>>
>>>> Thomas W Shinder, M.D.
>>>> Site: www.isaserver.org
>>>> Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/
>>>> Book: http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7
>>>> MVP -- ISA Firewalls
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 7:25 PM
>>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
>>>> Communications and ISA
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep - somehow he managed to completely bork his storage.
>>>>> We're almost to the point of a complete rebuild <sigh>.
>>>>> I'm actually doing a registry compare to see if I can sort
>>>> out what he
>>>>> broke.
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Jim Harrison
>>>>> MCP(NT4, W2K), A+, Network+, PCG
>>>>> http://isaserver.org/Jim_Harrison/
>>>>> http://isatools.org
>>>>> Read the help / books / articles!
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas
>>> W Shinder
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 17:20
>>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
>>>> Communications and ISA
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it a real problem, and dealing with jughead the
>>> enterprise admin?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thomas W Shinder, M.D.
>>>>> Site: www.isaserver.org
>>>>> Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/
>>>>> Book: http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7
>>>>> MVP -- ISA Firewalls
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 6:58 PM
>>>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
>>>>> Communications and ISA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not yet - been critsitting between postings.
>>>>>> ..or the other way 'round...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Jim Harrison
>>>>>> MCP(NT4, W2K), A+, Network+, PCG
>>>>>> http://isaserver.org/Jim_Harrison/
>>>>>> http://isatools.org
>>>>>> Read the help / books / articles!
>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Jones
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 14:44
>>>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
>>>>> Communications and ISA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any luck with this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
>>>>>> Sent: 14 August 2006 00:52
>>>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
>>>>> Communications and ISA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absotively.
>>>>>> Send it on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Jones
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 3:08 PM
>>>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
>>>>> Communications and ISA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah I know, have the same issues when looking at closed
>>>> betas with
>>>>>> cool features which could really help out some of my
>>>>> customers. Shame
>>>>>> the NDA doesn't extend to MS partners though...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PSS dude said that all KB articles related to a RPC
>>>> problems where
>>>>>> based upon using a large number of clients. He also said
>>>>> that as this
>>>>>> issue was happening before the DR problems I couldn't
>>> include it
>>>>>> within the DR call and I would have to log another
>>>> call...great! :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I give you the SRQ number, is there any chance you could
>>>>> point him
>>>>>> in the right direction? Pretty please :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
>>>>>> Sent: 13 August 2006 22:47
>>>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
>>>>> Communications and ISA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wish I could say more, but I'm bound by NDA...
>>>>>> The KB is on its way out the door and your PSS dewd need
>>>>> only do a bit
>>>>>> of research.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Jim Harrison
>>>>>> MCP(NT4, W2K), A+, Network+, PCG
>>>>>> http://isaserver.org/Jim_Harrison/
>>>>>> http://isatools.org
>>>>>> Read the help / books / articles!
>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Jones
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 14:41
>>>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
>>>>> Communications and ISA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whilst PSS logging a call to get some feedback on the DR
>>>>> issues I've
>>>>>> had with ISA, I mentioned this "new KB artilce"
>>>>>> and the chap i was dealing with was pretty clueless about
>>>>> it (amongst
>>>>>> other things!).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are really starting to become a tease with this
>>>> artitcle, as it
>>>>>> may solve two problems now! :-P
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
>>>>>> Sent: 13 August 2006 19:15
>>>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
>>>>> Communications and ISA
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not insinuating anything of the sort...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Keep your eyes open for that KB that deals in Outlook MAPI
>>>>>> connections; I bet it'll help you out here, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Jones
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 2:22 AM
>>>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
>>>>> Communications and ISA
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All relationships are route = I know intradomain is only
>>>> supported
>>>>>> this way - I'm not a complete newb at this ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Complicated setup I know, but pretty much 99% working apart
>>>>> from this
>>>>>> issue and teh RPC filter failings (other post)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tried with and without strict RPC - no dice, same issues...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Internet FW is hardware appliance (dumb packet filter)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
>>>>>> Sent: 13 August 2006 01:43
>>>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
>>>>> Communications and ISA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While this is a desirable design, it's also a very
>>> difficult one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are the network relationships between the networks?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For instance:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ExchFE ßà Exch BE == Route
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you disabled Strict RPC on the relevant rules?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NAT ain't happenin' FWIW...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the "Internet FW"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Jones
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 3:18 PM
>>>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
>>>>> Communications and ISA
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
>>>>>> Sent: 12 August 2006 22:41
>>>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
>>>>> Communications and ISA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe a napkin drawing, then?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't understand how your BE needs specific rules unless its
>>>>>> separated from the DC by ISA?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Jones
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 2:19 PM
>>>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
>>>>> Communications and ISA
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, not confused, and realise the difference between
>>> RPC/HTTP and
>>>>>> MAPI. I guess I am obviously not explaining myself very
>>>> well with a
>>>>>> complex environment and the problem very specific.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> AS such, any NSPI connections are strictly the problem of
>>>>>> the BE server.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not in this scenario, as the BE is in an ISA protected network
>>>>>> seperated from the DCs and FEs. The rule that allows
>>> access from
>>>>>> BE=>DCs is using RPC (All interfaces) and yet ISA is
>>>>> blocking traffic
>>>>>> from the NSPI proxy when using RPC/HTTP.
>>>>>> All other RPC traffic from BE=>DCs is working as expected
>>>>> and ISA is
>>>>>> detecting the RPC dynamic ports correctly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I allow All outbound protocols from BE=>DCs the NSPI
>>>> proxy works
>>>>>> and I see ports 1025. 1026 etc being used. It seems as
>>> if ISA is
>>>>>> missing the intitial RPC negations between the NSPI proxy
>>>>> and DCs and
>>>>>> hence blocks all dynamic ports after 135 is contacted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe I need to provide some diagrams and/or better
>>>> desacirptions...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
>>>>>> Sent: 12 August 2006 16:55
>>>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Subject: [isapros] Re: Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
>>>>> Communications and ISA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you're confused; RPC/HTTP doesn't use MAPI; it's
>>>>> "just" HTTP
>>>>>> traffic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AS such, any NSPI connections are strictly the problem
>>> of the BE
>>>>>> server.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only way ISA handles RPC traffic is via Exchange RPC or
>>>>> RPC (All
>>>>>> interfaces) rules.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Jones
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 5:13 PM
>>>>>> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Subject: [isapros] Exchange NSPI Proxy RPC
>>> Communications and ISA
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bit of a shot in the dark, as this is a strange issue,
>>> but hoping
>>>>>> someone can confirm what I am seeing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically, I have a pretty secure Exchange environment
>>>> whereby both
>>>>>> Exchange FE's and BE's are on ISA protected perimeter
>>>> networks with
>>>>>> the external network connected to the 'traditional LAN'
>>>>> e.g., ISA is
>>>>>> acting as a multinetwork internal firewall to
>>>> specifically protect
>>>>>> Exchange from the internal network (all routed
>>>>> relationships). In this
>>>>>> scenario, ISA is controlling all communications to and from
>>>>> Exchange
>>>>>> and all email client access is published using web
>>> publishing or
>>>>>> secure RPC publishing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Up until now everything has been working pretty well (apart
>>>>> from the
>>>>>> other RPC filter issues in my other posts!) but we have
>>>>> come across a
>>>>>> specific issue when using RPC/HTTP as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem seems to lie with the fact that the
>>> back-end Exchange
>>>>>> server is talking to the GCs and ISA is seeing these
>>>> connections as
>>>>>> newly initiated connections (e.g. non RPC) as opposed to
>>>> detecting
>>>>>> them as dynamic ports which have been defined as part
>>> of the RPC
>>>>>> handshake process. Therefore, ISA is dropping these
>>>> connections and
>>>>>> prevents the back-end server from communicating with the GCs,
>>>>>> specifically for RPC/HTTP (e.g. when using the NSPI proxy).
>>>>> All other
>>>>>> communications which relate to RPC and ISA's ability to
>>>>> detect dynamic
>>>>>> RPC ports is being done successfully (e.g.
>>>>>> MAPI communications from Outlook to Exchange). It looks
>>>> to me as if
>>>>>> the back-end Exchange server is initiating it own
>>>> connections which
>>>>>> ISA sees as communications independent of RPC. The issue
>>>>> only appears
>>>>>> to arise when the back-end servers proxy the client AD
>>>>> communication
>>>>>> (e.g. when using the NSPI proxy), as is the case with RPC/HTTP,
>>>>>> because Outlook clients have no access to the GCs from
>>>> the Internet.
>>>>>> For standard MAPI clients, they are simply given a
>>>> referral to the
>>>>>> actual GCs which they communicate with directly, independent of
>>>>>> Exchange (e.g. not using NSPI proxy).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does this sounds familiar? Is Exchange doing something
>>>>> weird here or
>>>>>> is ISA missing the RPC dynamic port negotiations?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking at the ISA logs, I see ports 1025, 1027, 1030 etc.
>>>>>> being used by the NSPI proxy which I am pretty sure are
>>>> going to be
>>>>>> the kind of ports dynamic RPC would use. If I add the
>>>>> ephemeral ports
>>>>>> (1024-65535) to the existing BE=>GC rule everything work
>>>>> just fine. If
>>>>>> I limit ports to standard intradomain protocols including
>>>> RPC then
>>>>>> everything works apart from RPC/HTTP and I start seeing
>>>> ports 1025,
>>>>>> 1027 etc.
>>>>>> being denied by ISA as unidentified traffic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Answers on a postcard! ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
