Permissions in SQL Server 2005 to allow users to view the Management Activity monitor?

For SQL Server 2000 we have a user login mapped to msdb with database role membership of db_datareader and public checked. This seems to allow the developers to view the Management Activity monitor. For SQL Server 2005 the same mapping is in place but the developers cannot view the Management Activity monitor. Developers are NOT granted the sysadmin role, and should not have that role.

What permissions need to be set for SQL Server 2005 to allow users to view the Management Activity monitor? They should not be allowed to take actions on the activities.

The Active Monitor tool requires VIEW SERVER STATE permission; this permission is required to select from DMVs such as sys.sysprocesses.

-Raul Garcia

SDE/T

SQL Server Engine

|||

Thank you so much! This did the trick.

Barb

|||

Does Management Studio Express support the Activity Monitor?

I've enabled VIEW SERVER STATE for admin and still can't find the Activity Monitor in the GUI.

Thanks

|||

Unfortunately I am not familiar with the different GUI tools available for SQL Express. I would recommend asking this question on the SQL Express forum (http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=385&SiteID=1) instead.

Thanks,

-Raul Garcia

SDE/T

SQL Server Engine

|||

Where do you set this: To view the Activity Monitor the user needs VIEW SERVER STATE permission on a SQL Server 2005 server.

|||

The easiest way is to just open a connection (i.e. using sqlcmd or Management Studio) using your sysadmin credentials and issue the following statement:

GRANTVIEWSERVER STATETO <<login name>>

This will grant <<login_name>> VIEW ANY STATE permission.

-Raul Garcia

SDE/T

SQL Server Engine

Permissions in SQL Server 2005 to allow users to view the Management Activity monitor?

For SQL Server 2000 we have a user login mapped to msdb with database role membership of db_datareader and public checked. This seems to allow the developers to view the Management Activity monitor. For SQL Server 2005 the same mapping is in place but the developers cannot view the Management Activity monitor. Developers are NOT granted the sysadmin role, and should not have that role.

What permissions need to be set for SQL Server 2005 to allow users to view the Management Activity monitor? They should not be allowed to take actions on the activities.

The Active Monitor tool requires VIEW SERVER STATE permission; this permission is required to select from DMVs such as sys.sysprocesses.

-Raul Garcia

SDE/T

SQL Server Engine

|||

Thank you so much! This did the trick.

Barb

|||

Does Management Studio Express support the Activity Monitor?

I've enabled VIEW SERVER STATE for admin and still can't find the Activity Monitor in the GUI.

Thanks

|||

Unfortunately I am not familiar with the different GUI tools available for SQL Express. I would recommend asking this question on the SQL Express forum (http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=385&SiteID=1) instead.

Thanks,

-Raul Garcia

SDE/T

SQL Server Engine

|||

Where do you set this: To view the Activity Monitor the user needs VIEW SERVER STATE permission on a SQL Server 2005 server.

|||

The easiest way is to just open a connection (i.e. using sqlcmd or Management Studio) using your sysadmin credentials and issue the following statement:

GRANT VIEW SERVER STATE TO <<login name>>

This will grant <<login_name>> VIEW ANY STATE permission.

-Raul Garcia

SDE/T

SQL Server Engine

Permissions in SQL Server 2005 to allow users to view the Management Activity monitor?

For SQL Server 2000 we have a user login mapped to msdb with database role membership of db_datareader and public checked. This seems to allow the developers to view the Management Activity monitor. For SQL Server 2005 the same mapping is in place but the developers cannot view the Management Activity monitor. Developers are NOT granted the sysadmin role, and should not have that role.

What permissions need to be set for SQL Server 2005 to allow users to view the Management Activity monitor? They should not be allowed to take actions on the activities.

The Active Monitor tool requires VIEW SERVER STATE permission; this permission is required to select from DMVs such as sys.sysprocesses.

-Raul Garcia

SDE/T

SQL Server Engine

|||

Thank you so much! This did the trick.

Barb

|||

Does Management Studio Express support the Activity Monitor?

I've enabled VIEW SERVER STATE for admin and still can't find the Activity Monitor in the GUI.

Thanks

|||

Unfortunately I am not familiar with the different GUI tools available for SQL Express. I would recommend asking this question on the SQL Express forum (http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=385&SiteID=1) instead.

Thanks,

-Raul Garcia

SDE/T

SQL Server Engine

|||

Where do you set this: To view the Activity Monitor the user needs VIEW SERVER STATE permission on a SQL Server 2005 server.

|||

The easiest way is to just open a connection (i.e. using sqlcmd or Management Studio) using your sysadmin credentials and issue the following statement:

GRANT VIEW SERVER STATE TO <<login name>>

This will grant <<login_name>> VIEW ANY STATE permission.

-Raul Garcia

SDE/T

SQL Server Engine

Permissions grants, denies don't take effect

Hi,

I'm trying to grant/deny object permissions in a user database using Enterprise Manager and query tool without success (for ‘public’ role and individual sql logins). I’m not getting any error messages. Permission changes just don’t take effect. Although, there are few objects, which already have permissions granted and I'm able to change permissions for these ones.

How can I change the permissions?

you might have a granted permission on a GUEST account

or an NT domain group. please check.

thats why denying wont work

|||there is no permissions granted or denied for the 'guest' account. I don't use domain groups.|||

What are the actual denies that you are trying to set. Did you verify that they appear in the system catalog (server_permissions, database_permissions)? Have you tried applying the denies using TSQL: DENY?

Thanks
Laurentiu

permissions for new user to use stored procedure

Using SS2000 SP4. If I have a table and revoke select, insert, update and
delete to public on the table. Then create a new user and don't give them an
y
permissions to the table. If I create stored procedures to select from,
insert into, update and delete from the table do I only have to give execute
permissions on the stored procedure to the new user for the user to be able
to execute those stored procedures? Am I correct in saying that the new user
doesn't have to have any kind of permissions on the table itself?
Thanks,
--
Dan D.That's correct. Indeed, you didn't need to revoke or deny anything on the
underlying tables, since a user has no permissions on an object by default.
All you have to do is grant EXEC permission on the proc.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D2083411-5A89-4F04-B1A5-373403FE75EC@.microsoft.com...
Using SS2000 SP4. If I have a table and revoke select, insert, update and
delete to public on the table. Then create a new user and don't give them
any
permissions to the table. If I create stored procedures to select from,
insert into, update and delete from the table do I only have to give execute
permissions on the stored procedure to the new user for the user to be able
to execute those stored procedures? Am I correct in saying that the new user
doesn't have to have any kind of permissions on the table itself?
Thanks,
--
Dan D.|||Wouldn't the user have permissions on the table because they are in the
'public' role by default?
Also, is the same true with views? If the user has select permission to the
view they don't need select on the underlying table?
Thanks,
--
Dan D.
"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> That's correct. Indeed, you didn't need to revoke or deny anything on the
> underlying tables, since a user has no permissions on an object by default
.
> All you have to do is grant EXEC permission on the proc.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D2083411-5A89-4F04-B1A5-373403FE75EC@.microsoft.com...
> Using SS2000 SP4. If I have a table and revoke select, insert, update and
> delete to public on the table. Then create a new user and don't give them
> any
> permissions to the table. If I create stored procedures to select from,
> insert into, update and delete from the table do I only have to give execu
te
> permissions on the stored procedure to the new user for the user to be abl
e
> to execute those stored procedures? Am I correct in saying that the new us
er
> doesn't have to have any kind of permissions on the table itself?
> Thanks,
> --
> Dan D.
>|||Let's say you create a table. By default, there are no permissions on the
table - even to the public role. Same goes for any other object.
You can grant permission on a view without granting permission on the
underlying tables. (This gets messed up if you're not the owner of the
underlying tables, though.)
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EC40014C-0943-4CC3-9FDD-BFE610495BFD@.microsoft.com...
Wouldn't the user have permissions on the table because they are in the
'public' role by default?
Also, is the same true with views? If the user has select permission to the
view they don't need select on the underlying table?
Thanks,
--
Dan D.
"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> That's correct. Indeed, you didn't need to revoke or deny anything on the
> underlying tables, since a user has no permissions on an object by
> default.
> All you have to do is grant EXEC permission on the proc.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D2083411-5A89-4F04-B1A5-373403FE75EC@.microsoft.com...
> Using SS2000 SP4. If I have a table and revoke select, insert, update and
> delete to public on the table. Then create a new user and don't give them
> any
> permissions to the table. If I create stored procedures to select from,
> insert into, update and delete from the table do I only have to give
> execute
> permissions on the stored procedure to the new user for the user to be
> able
> to execute those stored procedures? Am I correct in saying that the new
> user
> doesn't have to have any kind of permissions on the table itself?
> Thanks,
> --
> Dan D.
>|||I understand. Thanks.
--
Dan D.
"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> Let's say you create a table. By default, there are no permissions on the
> table - even to the public role. Same goes for any other object.
> You can grant permission on a view without granting permission on the
> underlying tables. (This gets messed up if you're not the owner of the
> underlying tables, though.)
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:EC40014C-0943-4CC3-9FDD-BFE610495BFD@.microsoft.com...
> Wouldn't the user have permissions on the table because they are in the
> 'public' role by default?
> Also, is the same true with views? If the user has select permission to th
e
> view they don't need select on the underlying table?
> Thanks,
> --
> Dan D.
>
> "Tom Moreau" wrote:
>
>

Permissions for EM

What permissions are needed to utilize Enterprise Manager?
Long story, but public role has all rights revoked, so I want to create a
new database role that has access to what it needs to get into the EM.As long as the user has server login priviliges, they 'should' be able to
use EM. And they will have access to any object with public
permissions -including any other db on the server that allows public access.
(Northwind and Pubs are allow Public access to everything, so they should be
removed from production servers.)
Then to access a specific db, they need to be provided access to the db, and
put in the desired role.
Arnie Rowland*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
"A McGuire" <allen.mcguire@.gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:u6rZf10pGHA.3584@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> What permissions are needed to utilize Enterprise Manager?
> Long story, but public role has all rights revoked, so I want to create a
> new database role that has access to what it needs to get into the EM.
>|||Note in my initial post - I had to REVOKE all permissions from the public
roles. db_securityadmin, therefore, does not have sufficient privileges any
longer to do anything, so I want to create a new database role with the
permissions needed to allow our security administrators to do their jobs,
which is creating logins, granting privs, etc.
"Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
news:u1XnaK1pGHA.2292@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> As long as the user has server login priviliges, they 'should' be able to
> use EM. And they will have access to any object with public
> permissions -including any other db on the server that allows public
> access. (Northwind and Pubs are allow Public access to everything, so they
> should be removed from production servers.)
> Then to access a specific db, they need to be provided access to the db,
> and put in the desired role.
> --
> Arnie Rowland*
> "To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
>
> "A McGuire" <allen.mcguire@.gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:u6rZf10pGHA.3584@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>

Permissions

Hi All
I would like to run a job that checks for any stored procedures without
PUBLIC access and grant them public access. What would be the best way to d
o
this and which tables/sp do i have to use? Thank you in advance.If you are using SQL Server 2005 you can do that easily with only this
command:
grant execute on database::mydb to public
Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
Database Administrator
"Baldy" wrote:

> Hi All
> I would like to run a job that checks for any stored procedures without
> PUBLIC access and grant them public access. What would be the best way to
do
> this and which tables/sp do i have to use? Thank you in advance.

permissions

Hello,
Is it better to set the permissions on a database from the login create
dialog or should i only check the public and arrange permissions on views.
Also when linking in access i see when there are no permissions set 2 tables
are still visible. Tables sysconstraints and syssegments are they any of
use?
I would like some advise on this
It's not clear to me what you're trying to do or where you're doing it
from. When you link SQL Server tables from Access, only the links are
stored in Access. You must set permissions on database objects in SQL
Server, which you can do from the Enterprise Manager or by executing
scripts. Access will not display tables that you don't have
permissions on. You should leave all systems tables alone and not link
to them in Access. They are all there for a reason, and meddling with
them will likely break things.
--Mary
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:54:20 +0200, "Ezekil" <ezekil@.lycios.nl>
wrote:

>Hello,
>Is it better to set the permissions on a database from the login create
>dialog or should i only check the public and arrange permissions on views.
>Also when linking in access i see when there are no permissions set 2 tables
>are still visible. Tables sysconstraints and syssegments are they any of
>use?
>I would like some advise on this
>

permissions

Hello,
Is it better to set the permissions on a database from the login create
dialog or should i only check the public and arrange permissions on views.
Also when linking in access i see when there are no permissions set 2 tables
are still visible. Tables sysconstraints and syssegments are they any of
use?
I would like some advise on thisIt's not clear to me what you're trying to do or where you're doing it
from. When you link SQL Server tables from Access, only the links are
stored in Access. You must set permissions on database objects in SQL
Server, which you can do from the Enterprise Manager or by executing
scripts. Access will not display tables that you don't have
permissions on. You should leave all systems tables alone and not link
to them in Access. They are all there for a reason, and meddling with
them will likely break things.
--Mary
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:54:20 +0200, "Ezekil" <ezekil@.lycios.nl>
wrote:

>Hello,
>Is it better to set the permissions on a database from the login create
>dialog or should i only check the public and arrange permissions on views.
>Also when linking in access i see when there are no permissions set 2 table
s
>are still visible. Tables sysconstraints and syssegments are they any of
>use?
>I would like some advise on this
>

permissions

Hello,
Is it better to set the permissions on a database from the login create
dialog or should i only check the public and arrange permissions on views.
Also when linking in access i see when there are no permissions set 2 tables
are still visible. Tables sysconstraints and syssegments are they any of
use?
I would like some advise on thisIt's not clear to me what you're trying to do or where you're doing it
from. When you link SQL Server tables from Access, only the links are
stored in Access. You must set permissions on database objects in SQL
Server, which you can do from the Enterprise Manager or by executing
scripts. Access will not display tables that you don't have
permissions on. You should leave all systems tables alone and not link
to them in Access. They are all there for a reason, and meddling with
them will likely break things.
--Mary
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:54:20 +0200, "Ezekiël" <ezekiël@.lycios.nl>
wrote:
>Hello,
>Is it better to set the permissions on a database from the login create
>dialog or should i only check the public and arrange permissions on views.
>Also when linking in access i see when there are no permissions set 2 tables
>are still visible. Tables sysconstraints and syssegments are they any of
>use?
>I would like some advise on this
>

Permission for a newly created user

I have created a login that belongs to both Public and
db_datareader database role to a specific database.
However, when I open the property of that newly created
user and select "List only objects with permissions for
this user". It is blank.
On the other hand, when I connect to QA with that user, I
am able to run SQL Script.
Is there anything wrong ? OR It is correct that we are
not able to see the access right in EM ?Peter
db_datareader is intended for SELECT all data from any users tables
If you want the user to not be able to modify any data in users tables make
him a member of db_denydatawriter
fixed database role
"Peter" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7c4801c5282d$0b0b3390$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have created a login that belongs to both Public and
> db_datareader database role to a specific database.
> However, when I open the property of that newly created
> user and select "List only objects with permissions for
> this user". It is blank.
> On the other hand, when I connect to QA with that user, I
> am able to run SQL Script.
> Is there anything wrong ? OR It is correct that we are
> not able to see the access right in EM ?|||No...nothing is wrong. You will see the permissions
explicitly granted to the user when viewing the permissions
from Enterprise Manager, users. You won't see the
permissions the user has based on membership to the role.
-Sue
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:30:37 -0800, "Peter"
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I have created a login that belongs to both Public and
>db_datareader database role to a specific database.
>However, when I open the property of that newly created
>user and select "List only objects with permissions for
>this user". It is blank.
>On the other hand, when I connect to QA with that user, I
>am able to run SQL Script.
>Is there anything wrong ? OR It is correct that we are
>not able to see the access right in EM ?

Permission for a newly created user

I have created a login that belongs to both Public and
db_datareader database role to a specific database.
However, when I open the property of that newly created
user and select "List only objects with permissions for
this user". It is blank.
On the other hand, when I connect to QA with that user, I
am able to run SQL Script.
Is there anything wrong ? OR It is correct that we are
not able to see the access right in EM ?
Peter
db_datareader is intended for SELECT all data from any users tables
If you want the user to not be able to modify any data in users tables make
him a member of db_denydatawriter
fixed database role
"Peter" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7c4801c5282d$0b0b3390$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have created a login that belongs to both Public and
> db_datareader database role to a specific database.
> However, when I open the property of that newly created
> user and select "List only objects with permissions for
> this user". It is blank.
> On the other hand, when I connect to QA with that user, I
> am able to run SQL Script.
> Is there anything wrong ? OR It is correct that we are
> not able to see the access right in EM ?
|||No...nothing is wrong. You will see the permissions
explicitly granted to the user when viewing the permissions
from Enterprise Manager, users. You won't see the
permissions the user has based on membership to the role.
-Sue
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:30:37 -0800, "Peter"
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I have created a login that belongs to both Public and
>db_datareader database role to a specific database.
>However, when I open the property of that newly created
>user and select "List only objects with permissions for
>this user". It is blank.
>On the other hand, when I connect to QA with that user, I
>am able to run SQL Script.
>Is there anything wrong ? OR It is correct that we are
>not able to see the access right in EM ?

Permission for a newly created user

I have created a login that belongs to both Public and
db_datareader database role to a specific database.
However, when I open the property of that newly created
user and select "List only objects with permissions for
this user". It is blank.
On the other hand, when I connect to QA with that user, I
am able to run SQL Script.
Is there anything wrong ? OR It is correct that we are
not able to see the access right in EM ?Peter
db_datareader is intended for SELECT all data from any users tables
If you want the user to not be able to modify any data in users tables make
him a member of db_denydatawriter
fixed database role
"Peter" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7c4801c5282d$0b0b3390$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have created a login that belongs to both Public and
> db_datareader database role to a specific database.
> However, when I open the property of that newly created
> user and select "List only objects with permissions for
> this user". It is blank.
> On the other hand, when I connect to QA with that user, I
> am able to run SQL Script.
> Is there anything wrong ? OR It is correct that we are
> not able to see the access right in EM ?|||No...nothing is wrong. You will see the permissions
explicitly granted to the user when viewing the permissions
from Enterprise Manager, users. You won't see the
permissions the user has based on membership to the role.
-Sue
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:30:37 -0800, "Peter"
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>I have created a login that belongs to both Public and
>db_datareader database role to a specific database.
>However, when I open the property of that newly created
>user and select "List only objects with permissions for
>this user". It is blank.
>On the other hand, when I connect to QA with that user, I
>am able to run SQL Script.
>Is there anything wrong ? OR It is correct that we are
>not able to see the access right in EM ?

Permission confusion

It seems by default the public role is granted very generous permissions.
When I tried DENY ALL TO public is didn't seem to have any affect. I know it
will work by listing the objects or going into enterprise manager and
denying.
I am tempted to pull all permissions from public and then only allowing
absolutely needed permissions (although I don't know what those are yet).
Is there a reason for the public role to have so much power?
Is it better to make a new role and just add the guest and other accounts to
that role to limit their access instead of removing permissions from the
public role?DAC,
The Public database role doesn't have any "generous permissions". That
being said - are you refering to Pubs or Northwind? Additional permissions
are granted in these databases to make it easier for developers to learn
T-SQL. Also, if you're refering to a user-defined database that has
"generous permissions" you might want to take a look that the permissions
granted in the Model system database as all new databases are based off of
the Model system database.
HTH
Jerry
"DazedAndConfused" <AceMagoo61@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23MAJ5ARxFHA.3300@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> It seems by default the public role is granted very generous permissions.
> When I tried DENY ALL TO public is didn't seem to have any affect. I know
> it will work by listing the objects or going into enterprise manager and
> denying.
> I am tempted to pull all permissions from public and then only allowing
> absolutely needed permissions (although I don't know what those are yet).
> Is there a reason for the public role to have so much power?
> Is it better to make a new role and just add the guest and other accounts
> to that role to limit their access instead of removing permissions from
> the public role?
>|||Thank you. The model database currently allows things like sysusers,
sysfiles, syscolumns, sysindexes and some procedures that I have not learned
about yet. Is this common or is it prudent to remove these permissions? Some
of what they reveal seems like giving away a lot of information, user names,
tables, columns, etc.
"Jerry Spivey" <jspivey@.vestas-awt.com> wrote in message
news:OG00dERxFHA.2880@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> DAC,
> The Public database role doesn't have any "generous permissions". That
> being said - are you refering to Pubs or Northwind? Additional
> permissions are granted in these databases to make it easier for
> developers to learn T-SQL. Also, if you're refering to a user-defined
> database that has "generous permissions" you might want to take a look
> that the permissions granted in the Model system database as all new
> databases are based off of the Model system database.
> HTH
> Jerry
> "DazedAndConfused" <AceMagoo61@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23MAJ5ARxFHA.3300@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>|||DAC,
I looked at my Model system database and there are permissions granted to
the public database role for may system tables/view but no stored procedures
so I'm not sure what you're seeing there. Normal? Yeah...and often time
required to allow certain sp_ functionality in SQL Server.
HTH
Jerry
"DazedAndConfused" <AceMagoo61@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2HHJmRxFHA.2728@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Thank you. The model database currently allows things like sysusers,
> sysfiles, syscolumns, sysindexes and some procedures that I have not
> learned about yet. Is this common or is it prudent to remove these
> permissions? Some of what they reveal seems like giving away a lot of
> information, user names, tables, columns, etc.
> "Jerry Spivey" <jspivey@.vestas-awt.com> wrote in message
> news:OG00dERxFHA.2880@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>|||Ok, thank you. It does help.
"Jerry Spivey" <jspivey@.vestas-awt.com> wrote in message
news:%235EulvRxFHA.1456@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> DAC,
> I looked at my Model system database and there are permissions granted to
> the public database role for may system tables/view but no stored
> procedures so I'm not sure what you're seeing there. Normal? Yeah...and
> often time required to allow certain sp_ functionality in SQL Server.
> HTH
> Jerry
> "DazedAndConfused" <AceMagoo61@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:u2HHJmRxFHA.2728@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>