Reading this email reminds me of a conversation between Ford Prefect and Arthur Dent:
FP: "...it's unpleasantly like being drunk." AD: "What's so unpleasant about being drunk?" FP: "You ask a glass of water." > -----Original Message----- > From: Leo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Posted At: Thursday, May 16, 2002 05:02 PM > Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List > Conversation: How about this as an option? > Subject: RE: How about this as an option? > > > > Well, whether it can or can't is really kind of a moot > point because > > it need to pass the message to the specified bridgead(s) in > its site > > to be passed on. > > >> That clears that up, thanks. > > > No, I think[1] that they have knowledge of servers outside of their > > site, but they also know what paths they are allowed to use > to deliver > > mail, and with the bridgehead down, there are no remaining paths. > > >>Makes sense! > > > > > Donald Livengood an HP consultant gave a 2 hour presentation on > > > > the subject in fast talkin redneck at a Compaq Exchange > Academy I > > > > attended. I think he might have given a similar presentation at > > > > MEC last year or the year before.. Might check Microsoft's > > > website for the > > > > slide deck. > > > > > > >>I will try to see if I can find his narrative as well to add to the > >>ppt > file > >>Gary kindly sent. > > > > > How big are the pipes and servers. I've seen a lot of E2K designs > > where it was clear the architects were stuck in 5.5 ways of > thinking. > > I'm not saying that is the case for you, but there's always that > > possibility. > > > > >> The pipes are a decent size (128kb +). I think I can see where you > >> are > going >> (i.e. intersite connectivity is via smtp so less > bandwidth hungry and more > >> resillient, right? > >> One of the reasons I think the routing groups were put in was to > control > >> public folder access (local client access local copy of folder). > > > In answer to the bigger question I think.. You can add more > > bridgeheads with higher routing costs to provide redundancy > in message > > routing while still maintaining primary message traffic routes for > > normal circumstances. > > > > >>It appears clear that the mailbox servers should have rg connectors > >>set > with >>higher costs. > > > [1] Think, don't have time to verify at the moment, but > either way I > > don't think it matters to the answer. > > >>I agree. > > >>To everyone who has submitted in this thread. THANKS > >>This sort of information is either very well hidden in some text > somewhere or >>is just not available. Even with a test lab > this is difficult to emulate and >>I am always in > appreciation of the experience/knowledge sharing that goes on >>here. > > >>I will keep you all posted on my progress. > Regards > Leo > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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]
