The problem is with &$(*)#&$#&$@ like MailGuard, it drops the packet, rather than replying with a 250 Error message, so Exchange doesn't know to not send ESMTP.
Roger ------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE MCT Senior Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA http://www.peregrine.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 4:20 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: host unreachable > > > If the server to which Exchange is speaking doesn't recognize > EHLO, it will > then try HELO, so it does it automatically. > > But, that's not really relevant to this discussion. > > -Mich�le > Immigration site: <http://LadySun1969.tripod.com> > Our new 2001 Miata: <http://members.cardomain.com/bpituley> > Tiggercam: <http://www.tiggercam.co.uk> > --------------------------------------------------------- > I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it ! > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Siegel, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 4:13 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: host unreachable > > > Is there a way to dumb down exchange and not send ESMTP commands? > 5.5 sp4 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 3:44 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: host unreachable > > > Not entirely true. That was an old version that munged stuff that way. > > Our P*x* d*n* d* *hat t** o*t*n, *u* h*ve *o** oth*r i*su*s. > > Seriously, the newer code bases are the ones that cause > dupes, because they > selectively drop packets that have ESMTP commands in them. > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE MCT > Senior Systems Administrator > Peregrine Systems > Atlanta, GA > http://www.peregrine.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 2:52 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: host unreachable > > > > > > You'll be able to identify the Cisco mailguard feature because it > > filters everything except 2 and 0, and replaces it with an > > asterisk. So > > your telnet session will be answered by > > ******22*********0******2****0*************** > > > > And it's not an extension of SMTP; it's a forced limitation of it. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Siegel, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Posted At: Thursday, November 01, 2001 01:06 PM > > > Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List > > > Conversation: host unreachable > > > Subject: host unreachable > > > > > > > > > > > > The question [I'll ask first] is why would mail to this > > > specific domain not > > > work? All other hosts work. And intellocity claims that > > they have no > > > problems from any other mail servers. > > > now the info: > > > > > > I am having a mildy intermittent mail delivery problem, and > > > for the most > > > part it is non-working vs working.Errors that were discovered > > > linking to > > > Intellocity are as follows: > > > > > > Upon setting Maximum SMTP logging in Exchange 5.5 [I am > at actv.com] > > > - Event 3010 is being recorded in app event log > > > -Event 2003 is also being recorded app event log > > > > > > 3010:An attempt to connect to host intellocity.com failed. > > > > > > Event ID 3010 can be caused by the any of the following > scenarios: > > > There is a name resolution issue to the relay host. > > > There are limitations of the relay host, such as inbound > > > connections are > > > allowed. > > > There is a firewall issue. > > > To continue troubleshooting, run Telnet to determine if the > > > IP address that > > > is listed in the event is correct. Next, verify that the IP > > > address has a > > > functioning SMTP port. > > > > > > > > > Event 2003: > > > A new TCP/IP SMTP connection has been made to host > > 64.139.16.228 (for > > > intellocity.com). Logfile: L0000004.LOG > > > According to technet: > > > If an event ID 2003 is reported, a connection has been made > > > to that relay > > > host. If you are experiencing event 2003 in addition to the > > > other events, > > > you may need to troubleshoot this issue as an intermittent > > > issue. This event > > > can occur if the maximum number of inbound connections to the > > > relay host has > > > been reached. > > > > > > I wanted to see where it was actually breaking down- So I > > > went into the raw > > > SMTP log files and excerpted the following: > > > > > > 9/7/2001 2:53:20 PM : <<< IO: |250 OK - Recipient > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > | > > > 9/7/2001 2:53:20 PM : <<< 250 OK - Recipient > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > 9/7/2001 2:53:20 PM : >>> DATA > > > > > > 9/7/2001 2:53:20 PM : <<< IO: |354 Send data. End with CRLF.CRLF > > > | > > > 9/7/2001 2:53:20 PM : <<< 354 Send data. End with CRLF.CRLF > > > 9/7/2001 2:55:03 PM : 499 Host unreachable: > > intellocity.com. Message > > > subject: ""RE: Stock Options"". Rescheduling delivery for later. > > > > > > > > > A technet lookup at this 499 error indicates: > > > A 499 Error: "No routing hosts are reachable," indicates > > that the TCP > > > connection has been dropped. > > > My guess-obviously I am not a network engineer, is they are > > > running some > > > extended smtp set, like the cisco smtp fixup protocol or some > > > outside factor > > > is disconnecting them.? > > > > > > Please help. I tried to furnish as much info as I could. > > > > > > > > > Rich > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Fogarty, David > > > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 5:07 PM > > > To: Mitchell, Gary; Siegel, Richard; @Unix Team > > > Subject: Email to Intellocity... > > > > > > We should document several tests to have on hand when we > > > inevitably get > > > asked what we've done about the situation.... An email to > > > Derik with the > > > tests we've done and the results we obtained would be > wise as well. > > > > > > I don't want to say "It's not us" though until we're 100% > > > positive..... > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
