This is another WAG, since I still have a fuzzy picture of what your set up is. Also, I am only recalling this from memory, since I don't have a ex5.5 in hand to look at this.
How about if you set the permissions on the IMS on that box to prevent any users on that box to use this connector. All you need to do then, is to make sure that all of these "remote" users don't have mailboxes on that particular server. This way, the users on that box will be forced to send out mail via your internet connector when sending mails to the internet. I am assuming that all the queues are from the users on the same Exchange server. Andrew MCSE (W2K & NT4) + CCNA > -----Original Message----- > From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Posted At: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:53 PM > Posted To: ExchangeDiscussion > Conversation: IMS Costs > Subject: RE: IMS Costs > > > Big question. We have a group of users that are 100% mobile > and they don't login to any RAS here so they login to local > AT&T ISP depending on what state/city they are in. Based on > this we had to deploy a 'invisible SMTP' server just these > people because we had to have our registered SMTP server be > relay secure. > > We couldn't do authentication or specific IP's and block > relaying because the group of users would only be able to > submit email to people in the site and not be able to send > email back out to the internet. > > I brought the original problem to this list over a year ago > and with much talk the idea of the invisible SMTP was the > solution. The group of users hates the OWA unfortunately. I > think it was actually ed that may have suggested it. > > The desired effect is to have a user submit a email to the > IMS and wether that person is internal or one of our mobile > users, that email would reroute to the registered SMTP and > never leave via the invisible SMTP. > > Does that all make sense? Hope so. > e- > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 4:41 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IMS Costs > > Cost is one of the last things evaluated in choosing a > gateway. Since an outbound IMS doesn't fail over, what's the > design goal of having an "invisible" SMTP server? And what is > the desired behavior in comparison to what you are currently seeing? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 2:05 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: IMS Costs > > Hi > > Exch 5.5 sp4 on win2k sp2 > > What would make internet email ignore( apparently )cost > values of the IMS? > > I have two IMS on separate machines, one is our registered > mail server the other is a invisible SMTP server. The cost > of the registered is 1 and the cost of the invisible is 100. > But I'm seeing email que up on the invisible server. The > invisible server is our mailbox server, could that have > something to do with it? > > e- > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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]
