So, mail sent from exchange box would have to pit stop at the unix box on it's way out to the world, that's what you're saying? & then during that pit stop you can modify the reply to address? Well, to do that, rewrite the reply to addresses at the Unix side, might not be a difficult option (I'm surrounded by unix geeks), but, you would have to send the mail back out through the Unix box for SMTP, right? A couple people suggested that they use EXIM to do just that. Boss said no dice, until proven an only option. But, sheesh, if it's the only way, I'm so not finding a way in exchange to do it. It's just a screwy unusual setup that exchange designers likely didn't anticipatae.
The way I understand our sendmail is that the filters can be applied to local delivery mail. So, setting up a second unix mail server, no problem, copy the filter program on to that machine. There's no routing mail around in circles generally. The filter program is SOOOO dang complex (ever used sendmail? Yikes) to recreate it in Exchange would be a bigger headache than this (though, at this point I just can't imagine that). It would suit me just fine to have it hit our MX record box, split it & send mail to the unix box or to the exchange box dependent on where the recipient is & cut out the forward. However, I'm not allowed to change the setup, already asked. It would suit me just fine to say, tough luck if people have your exch.mydomain.com address & you choose to no longer use exchange, it's just like cancelling any e-mail account anywhere, you will always have lingering people with the old address. It's life, it's just the way it goes. Unfortunately, I'm not the boss, by any stretch of the imagination. & until I exhaust every other posibility, he won't even consider changing the setup. Everything is already integrated efficiently with the billing system, we do hosting, domains are automated, mail associated with them automated...changing the setup (which is extremely efficient when you take Exchange out of the picture) would be a mess. No real offense taken on the responses, as long as they are constructive & not just attacts. I have been in this industry for a year, as a unix application programmer, I really don't know enough about this windows & networking stuff altogether (the gui alone is driving me bonkers, I need directory addresses! I can't find anything!). So, I'm just learning windows & exchange all together...ho hum... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Scharff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 1:53 PM Subject: RE: Help stopping local delivery > > Sorry, shouldn't have sent so quickly that last letter. > > > > What I mean by specific route is that when you send an e-mail to any > > domain, > > it checks the MX record on the authoritative server & sends the message to > > that machine. If that machine isn't the final destination it does final > > delivery to the A record, right? That's how I understand it. > > When a machine is responsible for a mailbox it does not check the MX > > record, > > it just delivers it. right? > > For the most part, in a simple mail environment that is correct. > > > Users will only have exchange accounts if they are going to be using it > > for > > a mail server. It won't be used as just a calender/etc. server by anyone. > > Mail for users without an exchange account will stay on the foreign > > system. > > OK.... so Exchange can do that out of the box. It can deliver mail to local > recipients and route the mail for non-local recipients to another mail > server. > > > You want the details of my system setup to prove to you that it's more > > efficient to forward the mail? Why? Even if it wasn't more efficient, > > does > > that matter to answering my question? > > Well, honestly because your question is stupid. I assumed (and your answers > are confirming) that bad design decisions have brought you to this point. > The "best" solution is to fix the design. > > > It has to route through the unix box to get the virus/spam filtering > > (sorry, > > I did see on here that the exchange allows filtering based on user, > > address, > > & the such, but I'm just used to "filtering" meaning virus/spam. Sorry > > for > > the lack of clarity there). > > If virus scanning and spam filtering of mail delivered locally to the > Exchange server is a requirement, it would be a best practice to have that > done on the Exchange server itself. If you had 2 unix mail servers, would > you really route all mail off of one server, through the other unix box and > back? > > > The reply to address has to be changed for the same reason, so replies > > won't > > go directly to the exchange box. > > Your problem as stated can be resolved programmatically... but it'd be > costly and inefficient. I think looking at the objectives which brought > Exchange into your environment in the first place and developing an > implementation strategy from there would be a better course of action. > That's probably not the answer you were looking for, but based on my > experience with messaging infrastructure I believe it to be the best one. > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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]
