good design can get it to not deliver to the machine it was sent from? Can you explain that?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Scharff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 1:26 PM Subject: RE: Help stopping local delivery > In a manner of speaking, yes. Can that be prevented? Yes. > > Option 1: Good design. > Option 2: Programming. > > Since option 1 seems to be out of the question, I'll happily offer to bid on > option 2. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wendy Reetz > To: Exchange Discussions > Sent: 8/9/2002 11:59 AM > Subject: Re: Help stopping local delivery > > local delivery delivers a message to users on the server it was sent > from? > correct? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Scharff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 12:52 PM > Subject: RE: Help stopping local delivery > > > > > Original question: > > > > Does anyone know how to preempt local delivery? > > > > If the server isn't authoratative for a domain I don't want it > accepting > > > > local deliver if there happens to be an smtp address defined for > one > of > > > the > > > > exchange user. > > > > If the exchange server is authoritative for exch.mydomain.com, > then, > > > fine, > > > > local delivery is ok. > > > > If user Joe has an exch.mydomain.com and has a second smtp address > > > defined > > > > of [EMAIL PROTECTED], I want mail sent from user Fred on > exch.mydomain.com > to > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] to actually route off the exchange server to the > > > authoritative > > > > server for joe.com (which is not the exchange server). Right now > it > > > does > > > > local delivery by default. Even specifying a smart host doesn not > > > preempt > > > > this local delivery. > > > > > > > > ? Heelp pleeease... > > > > > > oh, see, I"m sorry, I thought that just telling you that they were > logging > > > on & sending mail from their exchange server would imply it is a > mail > > > server. My mistake if that wasn't so "obvious" to you. > > > > You'd be surprised the number of people who try to use Exchange for a > > 'calendaring server' or 'groupware server' sans e-mail. I've seen it a > > number of times in a number of different variants, in a number of > forums. > > Perhaps it would have been a bit more obvious if you'd adequately > detailed > > your use case. > > > > > All mail sent to "mydomain.com" goes a specific route. The MX > records > run > > > it through a machine that does filtering before doing final delivery > to > > > the > > > unix machine with the mailboxes. > > > > You've now restated this generality 3 times. It means no more to me > now > than > > it did the other 2 times. All mail sent to my domain follows a > "specific > > route" too, but it doesn't require non-local delivery. What > /specifically/ > > does this unix machine do with regards to filtering? > > > > > There are 5000+ mailboxes here. Not all > > > of them are going to be using exchange mail server, most will likely > stay > > > on > > > this unix server. > > > > Ah, see your 5,000 users aren't using the Exchange server for mail. > > Apparently that's not so obvious to you. > > > > >For those who opt to use the added functionality of > > > exchange (serverside mail, owa, public folders, calendaring, etc) > their > > > mail > > > will be forwarded from the unix machine to the exchange server. > > > > So, some of your users are on Exchange and some are on a foreign mail > > system? Or all of your users have Exchange accounts and only some of > them > > use it for mail? > > > > >Reasons > > > for > > > this 1) ease of maintenance (believe it or not, yes, the forward, > though > > > inefficient under most circumstances is the most efficient way in > ours) > > > > I'll choose not refrain from believing or not until you elaborate. > > > > >2) > > > boss said so. > > > > Boss said so what? You still have not properly defined the problem and > the > > scope of the issue. If I decide to use Exchange and I send myself a > mail > > message, why does it need to route through the unix box before it > arrives > in > > my inbox? > > > > > After some headaches I've got the reply to address changed, > > > > Why does it need to be changed? > > > > > > > however, to do > > > so I have to create alternate smtp addresses on the exchange server > of > > > mydomain.com. Mail sent to "mydomain.com" should go to the MX > record & > > > does > > > for any address that doesn't have an associated address on the > exchange > > > server. If they do, it does local delivery. Which makes perfect > sense, > > > I'd > > > have set it up that way as well, it's more efficient in general. > However, > > > it's not logically necessary for mail to be delivered locally, so I > would > > > think there is a way to override it. > > > > Why would a mail server not deliver mail to a recipient it is > responsible > > for, but instead forward it to another mail server? > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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]
