Re: [Fed-Talk] RE: MACs are not authorized (UNCLASSIFIED)
Re: [Fed-Talk] RE: MACs are not authorized (UNCLASSIFIED)
- Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] RE: MACs are not authorized (UNCLASSIFIED)
- From: "Linton, Matthew C. (ARC-TI)" <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 09:35:05 -0500
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- Thread-topic: [Fed-Talk] RE: MACs are not authorized (UNCLASSIFIED)
I think a few of you missed the forest for the trees there.
On Aug 4, 2010, at 7:08 AM, "Knight, William H. (NIH/OD) [C]" <email@hidden> wrote:
> You can open multiple Exchange accounts simultaneously in Outlook 2003-2010 by opening Account Settings for your profile -> "More Settings..." button -> "Advanced" tab -> "Add..." button under "Open these additional mailboxes:". You will need the appropriate permissions to any account you add, but it will display whatever accounts you list in addition to your own primary.
>
> Thanks,
> -William
>
>
>
> On Aug 4, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Kim, Andy (Gregg) wrote:
>
>
> As a Senator’s Director of I T that I have utilizing multiple Outlook Accounts on a daily basis.
>
> Here are two or three ways to add Exchange Outlook. : +)
>
> 1. You can share ( i.e. give appropriate permission) your e-mail, calendar, tasks, notes, and journal with other Outlook users as long as you both are using a Microsoft Exchange Server in the same organization. As a result, you can access two Outlook account at the same time.
>
> 2. You can add an Exchange account by create a new mail profile via Control Panel / Mail / add mail , and I have three Outlook profiles. Be sure to select “ Prompt for a profile to be used. “
>
> 3. Utilizing the Microsoft Outlook Web Access (OWA) to access your email through your browser.
>
> BTW, above comments is only applicable and limited to my Office Forest as a Hybrid Office, and I am sure it may differ with other Federal Government.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8/3/10 9:40 PM, "Wm. Cerniuk" <email@hidden<x-msg://18/email@hidden>> wrote:
>
> MSO for Mac inferior to MSO for Windows?. Sure there are some differences but if MSO Mac is inferior because, for example, Entourage cannot retract a sent email ... the counter point would be that Outlook is inferior because it cannot handle more than one Exchange account at the same time. There are many examples related. One man's trash is another man's treasure. ( and for me iWork, a gem :-)
>
> What I would say is that for anyone that does anything beyond MSO, the Mac is likely the better choice. Anything to do with image manipulation, video production/recording/editing, audio production/recording/editing, emerging media, industrial design, marketing, product design, publishing, video teleconferencing, streaming, pod and vodcasting, professional or prosumer web design and production, software development for any platform, acrobat PDF creation (to name a few) the Mac is technologically a better choice.
>
> To the NETCOM point, Macs being allowed on the NIPRNET, don't forget the single most heavily visited government web site in the world, http://www.army.mil<http://www.army.mil/> All Mac... 80 + sites, plethora of web apps and virtual domains (not just .mil). Army Homepage was changed to Mac /specifically/ because of vulnerabilities that were exploited in the MS IIS servers previously hosting the domains. Google "global hell"...
>
> Lastly and most importantly, policy is written and signed (has accountability). If it is not written and not signed, it is not policy, it is heresay.
>
> HOOAH!
> Wm.
>
>
> On Aug 3, 2010, at 2:45 PM, James Alcasid <email@hidden<x-msg://18/email@hidden>> wrote:
>
> There is a Mac AGM but it is not a free for all to use what you want based on your personal preferences. I can see creative media pros on the Mac but not so much someone that pushes email or office documents all day. As good as Office 2008 is, it is really a poor substitute for Office on Windows, don’t get me started on iWork as a substitution which I really like.
>
> I’ve had brief discussions with Dr Harding on Macs when she was at NETCOM and proliferation of Macs was not the agenda. Justifications for Mac should be solid and concise versus “I want one”, it actually hurts the folks that actually need them.
>
> In reference to what Mr Blankenship is experiencing with Macs that were on the network and are no longer allowed, drive that up the chain as Dennis mentioned and get the security risk posed in writing.
>
>
>
>
> On 8/3/10 5:02 PM, "Joel Esler" <email@hidden<x-msg://18/email@hidden> <mailto:email@hidden> > wrote:
>
> Agreed. Complete BS. Netcom does allow Macs on the network. Hence why there is an AGM for it.
>
>
> On Aug 3, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Dennis, Floyd B (IHS/HQ) wrote:
>
> When receiving communications like this, my response is usually something along these lines:
> ------
> Please cite the specific security risks identified in relation to this operating platform.
> ------
> The best way I've found to deal with suspected appeals to false authority is to ask them to identify the authority. I don't have a major problem with following regulations - but you better be able to tell me WHICH regulation.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Floyd Dennis
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fed-talk-bounces+floyd.dennis=email@hidden<x-msg://18/fed-talk-bounces+floyd.dennis=email@hidden> <mailto:fed-talk-bounces+floyd.dennis=email@hidden> [mailto:fed-talk-bounces+floyd.dennis=email@hidden <mailto:fed-talk-bounces+floyd.dennis=email@hidden> ] On Behalf Of Blankenship, Bob J Mr CTR US USA IMCOM
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:29 PM
> To: email@hidden<x-msg://18/email@hidden> <mailto:email@hidden>
> Subject: [Fed-Talk] MACs are not authorized (UNCLASSIFIED)
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
> Is anyone else on Army networks running into this problem? Received the
> message below about reconnecting some Macs we have to the network.
>
>
> NETCOM DAA MACs are not authorized for use on the NIPR/SIPR due to
> the security risk they pose.
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Bob Blankenship
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden<x-msg://18/email@hidden> <mailto:email@hidden> )
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>
> This email sent to email@hidden<x-msg://18/email@hidden> <mailto:email@hidden>
>
> --
> Joel Esler
> http://www.joelesler.net<http://www.joelesler.net/> <http://www.joelesler.net<http://www.joelesler.net/>>
>
>
> ________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden<x-msg://18/email@hidden> <mailto:email@hidden> )
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>
> This email sent to email@hidden<x-msg://18/email@hidden> <mailto:email@hidden>
>
> <ATT00001..txt>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>
> This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden