EFTA00862408.pdf

From: Brad Wechsler <1 To: Richard Joslin -4 >, Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation(i-4,gmail.com> Subject: Re: server related questions Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 14:10:35 +0000 The whole thing is weird....I think I saw two notes last night and this mom that said every thing's fixed, yes? (I think we don't have to bother Jeffrey on this minutiae unless he has some perverse reason to hear abt it.)...and I do agree ada's insinuation is inappropriate. Will speak to both of you to make sure everything's cool. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry From: Richard Joslin < Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:56:04 +0000 To: Brad Wechsler< >; Jeffrey E<[email protected]> Subject: FW: server related questions From the IT folks — NO CHANGE from prior IT providers with regard to limits on emails. Said limits have been in place since FO was opened. Ada was NOT singled out to be restricted by myself in any way shape or form. I am chagrined by the allegation/ insinuation. From: Joshua Winkler [ Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:48 AM To: Ada Clapp; Warren Finkel Cc: Norm Steiner; Richard Joslin Subject: RE: server related questions Ada- I checked the server and while we never adjusted the limits when we onboarded you, there were default limits set previously. The general limits are: domain — messages can be sent and received as large as 100 Megs. domain — messages can be sent and received as large as 25 megs. As per your request, I have excluded you and heather from these limits and grated you the MAX capable size of sending and receiving which is messages up to 2GB in size. But it does not seem any of these limits were tampered with or altered by our team at any point. Just seems perhaps yesterday's message may have been larger than 25 Megs in size. The server needs some time to take to these changes, so while you may not be able to do this immediately, the setting is correct and will take effect so assuming your attachments are less than 2GB, sending these large messages should not be an issue for you going forward. Thanks From: Ada Clapp [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 7:36 PM To: Warren Finkel Cc: Joshua Winkler; Norm Steiner; Richard Joslin Subject: RE: server related questions EFTA00862408 Thank you. Much appreciated. Ada Clapp Chief Legal Officer Elysium Management LLC New York, New York 10022 Email: This communication and any attachment is for the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that further dissemination of this communication and its attachments is prohibited. Please delete all copies of this communication and its attachments and notify me immediately that you have received them in error. Thank you. From: Warren Finkel [ Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 7:15 PM To: Ada Clapp Cc: Joshua Winkler; Norm Steiner; Richard Joslin Subject: Re: server related questions Ada We will lift the suggested restrictions for you and Heather. Josh will handle in the am. I have a few meetings in the am, we can talk as needed in the late afternoon. Thank you Warren Finkel ACE IT Solutions Partner Visit our site at http://www.aceits.net Visit our cybersecurity site at Visit our blog at From: Ada Clapp [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 06:41 PM To: Warren Finkel EFTA00862409 Subject: FW: server related questions Hi Warren, Would you be free tomorrow to discuss this issue with me? Thanks. From: Ada Clapp Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 6:39 PM To: Richard Joslin; Eileen Alexanderson; Brad Wechsler Cc: Heather Gray - Sotheby's ( Subject: RE: server related questions Rich—I would be happy to get on the phone with you and ACE tomorrow. I think once ACE understands the situation, they will agree we are making a mountain out of a molehill. The file I tried to send was four pdf documents totaling 86 pages. The reason Lieberman had no issue with lifting the block is that (i) the documents I send are word documents—no pictures or funky graphics that tend to clog a server, (ii) I am sending and receiving mostly with law firms who are not generally restricted in size—so the email rejection is not an issue, and (iii) we are not a large company with many individuals who need to send large attachments. Heather and I are really the only two and it does not occur on a daily basis. So, if ACE concerned about clogging the highway—Heather and I may be the only ones that need to drive a truck (everyone else may be very happy to drive a Prius). Please note that in all the time we had Lieberman as our IT service, I don't think anyone complained of slow email; no one told me that my emails were rejected or trapped in SPAM because the attachments were too large to receive and I did not experience the mailbox issues ACE is noting. Let me know what time tomorrow works for you. Thanks -Ada From: Richard Joslin Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 6:19 PM To: Eileen Alexanderson; Brad Wechsler; Ada Clapp Subject: FW: server related questions Please read the below regarding email sizes. I will speak to the IT folks on document for 150, 200, 250 page documents sizes and revert. From: Joshua Winkler Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 5:20 PM To: Richard Joslin; Warren Finkel Cc: Norm Steiner Subject: RE: server related questions Richard- If this is in regard to SENDING and RECEIVING limits, I know this came up earlier, so allow me to explain in writing and I just left you a voicemail as well. EFTA00862410 Both Sending and Receiving limits are EXTRAODINARILY important. Firstly, you never want someone sending something too large as it could hog the queue. Imagine a line of cars trying to turn a tight corner on a narrow street with an 18 wheeler in front trying to negotiate the curve. The cars behind the truck will be stuck until it finally gets through. The same is true with emails behind an email trying to get out. Next — it will tax your server as your server will keep trying and trying and trying to push through this tremendous message. Your resources will max and entire server will slow down Furthermore, as far as sending is concerned, most people's mailboxes will REJECT messages over 10 megabytes in size, some even over 5! So it makes no sense to allow sending more than that level since even if it DOES go out, most spam filters and other servers will reject your message before it even gets there. Which brings us to our next point, dangers of receiving. Dangers of receiving messages with large attachments include, but are not limited to, clogging the server with trying to download a mega attachment (similar to sending, but in reverse), dangers of having someone send you a malicious file, such as a virus or spyware, that made it through your spam filter and wound up in your mailbox and dangers of freezing your computer while it attempts to attach and send such a large file. Regarding mailbox sizes in general: With limits in general, perhaps the most obvious of reasons is, emails take up space in your mailbox. Sending overly large files (or receiving them) is what really clogs up space in your mailbox. Which means your mailbox could act slower since there would be huge files sitting in there that you have once sent or received. Microsoft also recommends putting a default limit on your mailbox, meaning a mailbox should be able to hit X size. This is based on their best practices, to ensure the integrity of your mailbox. Very simply, the larger a mailbox gets, the less Microsoft can guarantee it won't become corrupt. If your mailbox does become corrupt, that's really bad news. The larger a mailbox gets, the slower it runs and the more space your mailbox eats up, the more space you need to buy on your server, etc etc. People also like to force mailbox deletion to avoid hoarding of old emails for no reason. I once had a company create a policy that purges their email past 6 months, because they didn't need to be liable for anything they did past 6 months' time and figured in case they get sued, why have more information than you need? Every company can create their own policy, some smaller companies don't have ANY policies regarding overall mailbox limit since nobody's mailboxes are all that large. We have seen law firms and accounting firms that refuse to clean up or place limits on the mailboxes and it's always a problem with their speed and syncing of their mailbox and the users constantly complain to which we reply "you need a smaller mailbox". So, security, mailbox corruption and "traffic jam" reasons aside, space limits are really there to prevent what I call a slippery slope. If you allow everyone to send and receive as large a file they want — they will start to complain about mailbox speed, or, moreover, your server will start to complain it's running out of space — and very few companies want to invest in an infrastructure where anyone can send and receive anything of any size for as long as they want. While certain vendors will allow certain limits, our general rule is to allow sending and receiving of files up to 10 megs in size. Unfortunately, today, we were not given the opportunity to specifically check the actual size of the file trying to be sent, so I cannot tell you exactly why there was an issue, but based on my understanding it was probably larger than that size anyway. Again, this is a lot to read and I can probably be far better speaking to you over the phone, but wanted to get you this info. Thanks, Josh From: Richard Joslin mailto. Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 4:55 PM To: Warren Finkel EFTA00862411 Cc: Norm Steiner; Joshua Winkler Subject: RE: server related questions Thanks. I want a 5 minute understanding to confirm my understanding on why Microsoft Outlook user mail boxes have size limits and why servers are designed with size in mind. I have an end user who is challenging me and I want to go to IT experts to confirm the design and the need for email limits both on mailbox and emails thanks From: Warren Finkel ( Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 4:52 PM To: Richard Joslin Cc: Norm Steiner; Joshua Winkler Subject: server related questions Richard Our help desk team responds to issues involving productivity and user related questions. It's not uncommon for this to be escalated. Josh who is part of our senior management will be happy to help and give you the information needed. As you know, the server was set up by the former IT company but we have been serving you now for several weeks and up to date on everything. Users, security,etc., Thank you Warren Finkel Partner ACE IT Solutions New York, NY 10022 Visit our site at http://www.aceits.net Visit our cybersecurity site at Visit our blog at IMPORTANT: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and is intended only for the named addresseelsl. If the reader of this email message is not the intended recipient for the individual responsible for the delivery of this email message to the intended recipient), please be advised that any reuse, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message is prohibited. All rights to the contents of this message are the exclusive property of Ace IT Solutions. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please reply to the sender that you have received this e-mail message in error and then delete it. Thank you. EFTA00862412