There is an updated version as of July 2002. I don't have the link to hand but I was able to download it from the MS site as part of a set of E2K Whitepapers.
-----Original Message----- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 16 December 2002 13:34 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K front-end and back-end in different domains? I would really have to guess this is a misprint based on the other destructions in the FE/BE topo documentation. Such as, having to add virtual servers for different SMTP domains, etc. This is our setup, and it works fine. We have the FE in a child domain, and E2K servers in every other child domain. Nothing is in the root. -----Original Message----- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 3:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K front-end and back-end in different domains? If it works, why would you call PSS? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 2:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K front-end and back-end in different domains? A while back I queried the group about putting E2K front-end servers in a different domain (but same forest) than the backend servers. A couple of people responded that they could indeed be in different domains and were in fact running that way. Based on that positive feedback, I decided to try it out in test, and lo and behold it does seem to work (very limited testing so far...). Now the weird part: While perusing the Microsoft document titled "Exchange Front-end and Back-end Topology White Paper" for firewall information, I found a blurb on page 16 that specifically states that back-end servers must be in the same domain as the front-end servers. I had missed that entirely in previous reads! This paper is dated July 2000. I'm hoping that this is either wrong, or outdated (superceded by a service pack perhaps?) Does anyone have any references showing that this supported? I really hate to burn a PSS call on this... _________________________________________________________________ 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] BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system, do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. _________________________________________________________________ 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]
