Interesting.
 
I can't think of anything that a FSMO role move would have changed that would have caused that behavior. However, my love of exchange is not unknown on this list nor is it, in my opinion, unfounded. There are many things in Exchange that aren't quite logical. :o)
 
So anyway, did anything ELSE change and are you sure and how do you know?
 
I would assume that you set up the mailbox so that DC2 machine account had full mailbox access? If not, how was it accessing the mailbox? Any errors in the event log? What do you see in a network trace?
 
  joe
 
 
-------------
http://www.joeware.net   (download joeware)
http://www.cafeshops.com/joewarenet  (wear joeware)
 
 
 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael B. Smith
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 7:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ActiveDir] Move FSMO Roles Affect Permissions?

Windows 2000 Native Mode, flat (single) domain, single site.
 
DC1 and DC2 are both Windows 2000 servers w/sp3 plus all current hotfixes. Until last Sunday (3/28), DC1 holds all FSMO roles. Both DC1 and DC2 are GCs.
 
DC2 runs a service, under localsystem, that logs into an Exchange mailbox, which is explicitly set to allow "Domain Admins" to have "Full Mailbox Access".
 
Everything works fine.
 
Two Wednesdays ago (3/24), a Windows 2003 DC (DC3) was introduced into the mix. It was allowed to be there for five days to ensure no problems happened.
 
Last Sunday (3/28), all FSMO roles were moved to DC3.
 
This Wednesday (3/31) the service running on DC2 suddenly reports that it can't log into the Exchange mailbox anymore. After a restart it reports the same thing. After a reboot it reports the same thing.
 
It took changing the service account to a domain admin account for the service to start operating again.
 
Two questions:
 
1) Just WTF?  :-)
 
2) Should I have expected that transferring FSMO roles would affect how permissions of localsystem on a DC were applied?
 
3) Why the 3 day delay?
 
(yeah yeah, I know that was three, not two, but the first one was really specious.)
 
Thanks,
Michael
 

Reply via email to