Thanks for the reply, nice to know I am thinking clearly even late on a Friday.
Leo > That's how I am doing it. Each front-end has an SMTP Connector defined > around it (local bridgehead) and the first SMTP Connector has address space > = 1, while the other one = 2 > > It would be really nice if MS allowed to define local bridgehead based on > the WLBS name of the WLBS-ed front-ends :) > > I am not sure if this will rowk too, maybe it will (but I can't stop > production to test this right now) > - have one SMTP connector based on both front-ends as local bridgeheads. I > remember doing it in the past and I remember that I lost some flexibility > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Leo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 1:40 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Mind gone blank - easy question for a Friday! > > > My mind has gone blank for the moment sorry folks this is a silly question > but.... > > We have many exchange 2000 servers and we want two dedicated IMS servers > one as a standby in case the other fails (as we used to on Exchange 5.5). > > How do would you set this up? > > My guess is ..... > > Mailbox servers with no changes to the virtual smtp server > Two IMS servers with an smtp connector each with the address space of *, > one with a cost of 1 and the other server with a cost of 10. > Each SMTP connector lists itself as the local bridgehead and the same > smart host record. > > Is this correct? > > Regards > Leo > (Friday at last) > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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]
