esucmn

36 hours per week from 8.30 to 16.30 Full Time Bexley scale 7.1 to 7.4 - Salary 21,588-23,511 We are seeking to appoint an enthusiastic ICT Technician to join a small team and support the Network Manager. The successful candidate must show initiative, flexibility and a degree of independence as well as an interest in advancing their own professional development. This position will also include up to 10 hours per week exam invigilation when required and supervision of students in computer rooms. Good technical experience is required in hardware, software and networking across a range of platforms. In addition knowledge of VMware, Citrix Xen App, Exchange, Web design, and SharePoint would be a distinct advantage. The emphasis is not so much on PC repairs, but working on the server back end applications. If you are interested in this exciting opportunity, further information, including an application pack is available on our website at http://www.beths.bexley.sch.uk/beths/index.php/vacancies Closing date for applications: Noon on Tuesday 10 December 2013 Start Date: As soon as possible Beths Grammar School Hartford Road Bexley Kent DA5 1NE Tel: 01322 556538

I asked the same question and they refused to answer

Bad luck - I seriously feel your pain!

My bad Yeah - just be glad you didn't delay your virtulisation, new servers and infrastructure project from last year, decide to put in a wireless system, and install an Exchange system this year. Cos that would just be insane when we have LGFL 2.0 to add even more problems :'( If I make it through this summer without a serious mental breakdown, it's going to be a miracle!

Do you mean the ECC relays? How do you know there is no limit? Can you point me to precisely where this is specified? Which relays are you talking about here? Where are the technical details on the limits and sanctions spelled out? Will they increase the limit? Becuase they won't on StaffMail?

No - In this case you should be using the web based RAv3 with an RSA token, or the Cisco Anyconnect VPN. Sensible precautions, if a bit of a pain in the backside. For normal school administration, I don't see this as a problem.

He was the one who refused.

I don't disagree with the idea of rate limiting - in fact I fully intend to implement such limits myself. If you re-read what I asked and what the answers were, you will see that they refuse to tell you want the limits and penalties are. This means that we could be in a condition where were send out an all student email via a distribution list or similar and get the entire school blocked as a spammer because we didnt realise we could only send 300 emails per hour. Of course we might not, but WE CAN'T FIND OUT!! I agree - not a problem with that. The problem is as stated above they won't tell us if there is a limit that leads to sanctions - like the password incident above. I would rather trust a very simple system under my own control than a huge system catering for thousands upon thousands of users any day. The more users, the more complicated the system and the more likely it is to fail. And when it does fail its more complicated to fix. In addition to this, when its under my control *I* can fix it and have control over how long it takes - which when it is me being shouted at by the staff, I infinitely prefer!

This is my biggest problem currently - we cannot get a straight answer out of Atomwide what is and is not allowed, especially with regards to email. Having worked around the recipients per email, they then blocked the Head's PA (without notice or telling anyone) by changing her password, leaving her without email for 24 hours. This did not go down well. The reason was apparently too many recipients in X period of time. To avoid this we want to run our own Exchange system with sensible limits for our school, However we have to use their email relay system. This leaves the following points: 1) I don't trust them to keep their systems running. Their systems are more complicated than those required for a single school and therefore more likely to fail. We want to remove this unnecessary point of failure. 2) When asked about what restrictions were placed on mail sent though their mail relays they said none 3) When pushed on what the point of these filters were given they had no restrictions they said there were to stop spam. 4) When pushed on this they refused to reveal the technical limits that would consititude "spam" or sanctions that would result from it. How can you aim at a goal when you can't get an answer as to where the goalposts are?

The contract is in the public domain: http://files.lgfl.net/lgfl/policies/lgfl%202.0%20network%20services%20agreement.pdf

I'd like it under my control. I have no confidence their security policies will allow the services we run.

EXACTLY!! They hoodwinked us into a long contract we cant get out of and that irks me even more than their rediculously impractical policies.

Oh this just gets worse!

Let me get this straight.... they're blocking OUTBOUND connections??!?

How did you manage this without having to pay £xx000? We don't have the service installed and are still been unable to cancel our contract?

This was pointed out to them. They basically stonewalled. This too was pointed out. Atomwide (a name I class almost as low as TFL in my list of all time worst people to deal with) said they just do what they're told by LGFL. LGFL said nothing useful that ammounted to "we're not going to budge".

These are part of the contract. Right at the top its says this contract includes these X documents (5 or 7 i think) and that they can be changed at any time.

I wish we could take it to court, but our school don't want to pay the legal fees.

I really hope this works for you but LGFLs position is that we have signed the contract, the contact has begun (despite no equipment), we are stuck. We've been trying to wiggle out of this for months with no luck. We had a much much better offer from BT - I advise trying to beat them up on the price and they will come down. We got 100Mb/s from BT down to half what LGFL were asking. If you can find a loophole in this apparently water tight contract please let us know!

People get confused between log me in rescue (log me in 123) and log me in remote access. Its the remote access that caused the security risk, and I am highly supportive of banning that. Log me in rescue is not such a risk (although there is still some risk), however according the LGFL its not possible for them to distinguish between the services at the firewall level so they blocked it completely. I can see the reasoning but it does cause problems with remote support.

I'm not sure that's true - I think the idea is that WE have the subscription as part of LGFL and then when we need support from $company, we send them a url/code and then they can connect to our system. A bit like logmein123 in reverse.

Any type of remote access. See the quote from their "technical" document below:

that's what I understood, hense the question

Does this imply they intend to break the link between Fronter and USOs?

Likewise - Although Virgin are ammusing me in a bad way. I had to phone them 3 times to get the education manager to call me back, and he still hasn't emailed me the prices. If the sales teama re this bad, what are support like?!?