You might want to check with your legal department before continuing down
this alley.
Regards
Mr Louis Joyce
Data Support Analyst
BT Ignite eSolutions
-Original Message-
From: Exchange Newsgroups [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 13 March 2002 00:10
To: Exchange Discussions
Good idea. We are getting closer... Inspirated by your mail I tried it from scratch
this time.
Systemadminisitrator is the standard Exchange user which sends warning messages.
If you want to create a rule for a certain sender, you need adress book entry for this
sender. It is impossible to
Hello Daniel
What is KCC?
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 6:31 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Recalculate Routing for MTA doesn't work
Recalcuate Routing is the exact same function as the one called
Knowledge Consistency Check. It's under Directory Service, Server Level.
-Original Message-
From: Mahesh Bharatsingh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 7:48 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Recalculate Routing for MTA doesn't work
Hello Daniel
What is
Kentucky Cooked Chicken
(Knowledge Consistency Checker)
-Original Message-
From: Mahesh Bharatsingh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 7:48 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Recalculate Routing for MTA doesn't work
Hello Daniel
What is KCC?
(KCC) This offers no solution.
The previous route still exists in the routing table.
I connected two sites through a different server and expected the old route
to disapear from the routing table.
Instead the route got updated with the new server, so i have a route that
goes from the new
Damn, beat me to it..
Regards
Mr Louis Joyce
Data Support Analyst
BT Ignite eSolutions
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Recalculate Routing for MTA doesn't work
Looks like you're server thinks its domain is mail.bhi-erc.com, not
bhi-erc.com
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Peregrine Systems
Atlanta, GA
-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL
I noticed that Trends Scan Engine is now 6.1, but when I try to update from
the 5.630-1025 via the console it says there are no newer versions. I sent
a message to Trend inquiring on this one, but was wondering if anyone else
is seeing the same issue. Possibly a manual download is require?
I have the article Q284148 on removing the last 5.5 server. All attendees, all of the
time.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 9:38 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 in 5.5 Site
Yes, this list is a
Hi there
I was looking over the white paper, and according to Microsoft, both
active/passive and active/active are recommended in the below listed
whitepaper. Do you have access to information that suggests otherwise??
Thanks
Russell
-Original Message-
From: Woodrick, Ed
Anyone got any good Q articles or pages explaining the drawbacks of doing
Brick Level Backups? My memory is slightly rusty and i am looking to
persuade my new site to stop doing them. The site is currently using Veritas
Exchange backup.
Searched TechNet with no fruitful findings. DR papers dont
I think that the lack of mention of BLB in the DR papers says it all doesn't
it? DR BLB.
Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Louis Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:47 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: BLB's
Anyone got any good Q articles or pages
Most of that opinion is experience based, Ed is a published Author with
an exchange Book under his belt, He knows what he is talking about. If
you ask any MVP, any one who has worked with exchange they too will all
say Active / passive is the better of the 2.
Personally I prefer to listen to Mr.
http://www.exchangefaq.org/recovery/0004.php3
Old, but still valid.
-Original Message-
From: Louis Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:47 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: BLB's
Anyone got any good Q articles or pages explaining the drawbacks of
http://mail.tekscan.com/nomailboxes.htm
-Original Message-
From: Louis Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 6:47 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: BLB's
Anyone got any good Q articles or pages explaining the drawbacks of doing
Brick Level Backups? My
I had to manually update my engine.
-Original Message-
From: Pfefferkorn, Pete (PFEFFEPE) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 6:27 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Virus
I noticed that Trends Scan Engine is now 6.1, but when I try to update from
the
Some one out here has a great link or saved message on this one.. This
link is a start.
http://mail.tekscan.com/nomailboxes.htm
--Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond
Did I just say that out loud?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
You are Quick on the draw this morning.
--Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond
Did I just say that out loud?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin
Blackstone
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 6:54 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject:
You all hit the nail on the head there, guys.
Thanks for the VERY useful links.
Now the fun part...
Regards
Mr Louis Joyce
Data Support Analyst
BT Ignite eSolutions
-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 2:54 PM
Use Active/Passive clusters when possible to increase scalability and
reduce failover times. Active/Active clusters are only supported in
2-node configurations in which each node has a maximum of 40 percent
loading and 1900 simultaneous users.
Microsoft Exchange 2000 Server Service Pack 2
We really don't want to know about your personal life.
-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:55 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Virus
I had to manually update my engine.
-Original Message-
From:
Why BLB's are bad(FAQ entry here?)
1) Tape usage is much higher, often several tapes (read big $ on
consumables)
2) Backups take MUCH longer to complete (on one site it took 24hrs the way
they set it up!)
3) Single Instance Storage is not preserved.
4) Requires the purchase of additional
This has been covered in ad nauseam in the archives.
And FWIW, SIS looks like it is becoming less and less important in the
Exchange world anyway.
-Original Message-
From: Mike O'Toole [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:09 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
If you are going to spend the money, bump up the disk space for retention.
-Original Message-
From: Mike O'Toole [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:09 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: BLB's
Why BLB's are bad(FAQ entry here?)
1) Tape usage is
Routes do not auto-delete merely because another one exists. One wouldn't
want that to happen since multiple routes provides redundancy (a good
thing). The unwanted route has to be manually removed.
- Original Message -
From: Mahesh Bharatsingh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions
Have you created trusts between the W2K domain you are installing E2K in
and the NT domain that 5.5 is in? If you verify the trust, is it
successful?
-Original Message-
From: Alister [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:11 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE:
Where do you get this idea?
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:19 AM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: BLB's
Subject: RE: BLB's
And FWIW, SIS looks like it is becoming less and less important in the
I wide awake
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 6:59 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: BLB's
You are Quick on the draw this morning.
--Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond
Did I just say that out loud?
Follow that article and you'll be fine.
What is meant by users can't see others' schedules? Is there an error
message or do you mean they open the schedule but it is blank when you know
there should be info there?
- Original Message -
From: McCullar, Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange
We Only have a W2K domain. 5.5 was installed at the time because 2000 wasn't
available.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Grant, Fred
Sent: 13 March 2002 15:19
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 - 2000 Upgrade grief
Have
It is just blank where before you could see there busy times in blue.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:21 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 in 5.5 Site
Follow that article and you'll be fine.
Just a personal opinion from my article reading.
-Original Message-
From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:20 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: BLB's
Where do you get this idea?
-Original Message-
From: Andy David
I just ran into something like this very recently.
On the 5.5 box open the Services and get properties on each Exchange
service. Manually enter 'domain\username' and restart the services.
Yes, I know, sounds weird. But it works.
- Original Message -
From: Alister [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
That would mean the F/B folder is not populated. At the moment that F/B
server is hosted on the 5.5 box.
To simplify troubleshooting follow the gameplan of removing the 5.5 box and
we'll go from there.
- Original Message -
From: McCullar, Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions
I talked to compaq/microsoft today, I am confident in our situation here that an
active/active is the right choice for us.
Currently we have the following:
Server no. 1 - Quad Pentium Pro 200 MHZ (very old chipset technology) - 1 MEG cache on
each processor - 2 GB RAM: (800 mailboxes/heavy
Gameplan as in populate AD??? I'm not sure what you mean by F/B.
I can't remove the 5.5 box at the mo, as it is our main mail server. I need
to get a Ex2000 box running in parallel first, hence my prob's.
Thanks
Ali
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
And what do you plan on gaining from the active active?
--Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond
Did I just say that out loud?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Sabo, Eric
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
I get to use both of my servers that I purchased. Cause of our budget is so tight
and I have get buy. It took me a year to get the following equipment.
Don't you think active/active is right for me, since I am below the MS recommendations.
Eric Sabo
NT Administrator
Computing Services
What does the term concurrent users mean?
Does this mean a HTTP/POP3/IMAP4 user is consider the same as an MAPI user - Load
wise?
Can someone please explain what Microsoft means by concurrent users?
Thanks,
Eric Sabo
NT Administrator
Computing Services Center
California University of
Let's look at this
Both servers must be at less than 40% to use Active/Active
Living within those rules, the same implementation on Active/Passive
would yield 80%/0% usage. Looks to me like you can get better use out of
the two servers by going Active/Passive!
And implementing a Single
You have HTTP/POP3/IMAP4 users?
That's a horse of a different color, where are the Front End Servers
-Original Message-
From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:22 AM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: Concurrent Users
Subject:
Kind ladies and gentlemen of the list. I am sending this message again in
hopes that someone will be able to help me. I'm not intending to spam the
list, just looking for some assistance. I've heard from a few people off
list that they've also experienced similar problems, but none of them
Eric,
It's not such much the processor you should be worried about, but the
virtual memory. You'll see, the VM will get fragmented, and failover
might not happen like it should.
As far as, I get to use both boxes You get to use those anyway in
an active / passive solution. Don't fall for the
So concurrent users are any user that connects to your exchange servers.
This is a one to one ratio - not dependant upon the protocol they are using to attach
to the server.
Eric Sabo
NT Administrator
Computing Services Center
California University of Pennsylvania
-Original Message-
I'd tend to agree with Andy. With more databases per server, overall SIS
decreases on average and the STM has driven up disk space requirements
substantially as well. Not that SIS isn't a good thing, but I don't think it
factors into Exchange design as much as it used to.. at least for me.
Why does Microsoft say you can even do an active/active cluster in the first place
with those parameters as describe in the SP2 Release notes.
http://www.bink.nu/exchange_2000.htm
Eric Sabo
NT Administrator
Computing Services Center
California University of Pennsylvania
-Original
Did you try any telnet testing?
-Original Message-
From: Joe Pochedley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:40 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Network Error During Host Resolution
Kind ladies and gentlemen of the list. I am sending this message again in
Where did you read that from? Definitely not my post.
CONCURRENT=AT THE SAME TIME
HTTP/POP3/IMAP = not a standard user. Very different profile, especially
without a Front End Server.
I'd definitely have to recommend that you find yourself another set of
experts to help you. You are asking
Sheesh. It's not a matter of can/can't. It's a matter of should/should
not.
And really, if you don't like what you're hearing, just do whatever you
want. It's not like we're a committee deciding how your environment
will be set up. We're just trying to provide the best guidance.
Missy
-
There does not appear to be a MX record for de.durr-usa.com
Perhaps this is your problem.
Nick
-Original Message-
From: Joe Pochedley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 13 March 2002 16:40
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Network Error During Host Resolution
Kind ladies and gentlemen
Have you tried to send an email to @durr-usa.com?
It seems that de.durr-usa.com is a server name of one of the mx record
for the durr-usa.com domain. And there is no MX record for
de.durr-usa.com domain. If you were able to send them mail on
@de.durr-usa.com before, then they must have changed
Ed,
Thank you. I'm just trying to get feedback and learn. Sorry to get you so
upset.
I believe that you can go from an active/active configuration to an
active/passive. So I don't see any harm in trying an active/active configuration for
now. It might work for our
They screwed up, Eric. I was at a client, designing a 20k+ deployment,
right at time of RTM. As we got further into it, this little VM problem
surfaced, and MS (with the tail between their legs) admitted that A/A
was not the way to go.
The problem is they hyped A/A so much on release, and of
Recently I have some customers receive multiple copies of messages that
appeared to be looping, tracking the problem to pop accounts that are
configured along with the Exchange service in the same profile. The users
claim that this configuration had been in place for a while with no
issues. I
Is your Front-End Server also a quad Pentium? Make sure that it is sized
correctly.
What's the harm? Plenty, but I'm tired of talking to a brick wall. Go
ahead, configure it, watch it work for a long time. Watch it fail a year
from now and watch your butt get chewed out. You'll never find the
Did you read my response?
It's called Outlook Names Caching.
-Original Message-
From: John Q Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 8:24 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: change in ADSI created two accounts?
After doing some more investigating, i.e. I
Ed,
I will keep you post on how it goes.
Do you know?
Does the MSExchangeIS-Maximum Users in perfmon, would tell max concurrent
user? Is there a counter in perfmon to tell concurrent users so I can do a log over
a 24-hr period?
Eric Sabo
NT Administrator
Computing
I know there's no MX record (I stated that in my original post). According
to the RFC for SMTP (forget the number right now), if there's no MX record
but there is an A record (which there is) then the SMTP server should use
the A record as an MX record and attempt delivery to the address
Hi there
Let me start by saying two things:
1) I didn't mean to start a heated discussion on this. If I offended
anyone, I apologize. I'm trying to use this as a learning experience. I
have found in the past that even Microsoft makes mistakes.
2) As for active/active - the only reason that
I would like to add some additional evidence to this post. At first look I
would say that this persons (account) does not exist at this system. However;
I have this exact same problem with accounts I know to exist, in fact if I
bring up my MSN account and send to the identical address it works,
You CANNOT add more users in Active/Active. That is a simple fact.
Active/Active has a limit of about 3900 users.
Active/Passive has no such limit. It is limited only by the hardware.
There are quite a few 6,000 user Active/Passive clusters. This could not
be done reliably on an Active/Active
Andrew,
Yes, messages to go through when sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unfortunately
all the Reply To: addresses include the server name / subdomain (and always
have)...
Of course they swear (just as I do) that they haven't changed anything.
Joe Pochedley
I like deadlines,
cartoonist Scott Adams
Because Active/Active was advertised as a feature ion Exchange 2000. And
while it WILL do it, testing and experience have shown that limitations
that were not contemplated during the design phase suggest that it
should not be done.
In reality, for Active/Active clustering, you would want each
Hi Ed
Then I have totally misunderstood what I was reading. I assumed that the
limit was on active/passive as well. I am wrong.
I wish that MS would have been clearer on the fragmented memory issue. That
would have made my life easier - especially down the road. I am just now
starting to
It seems that you are using the Exchange to deliver mail directly using
DNS lookup. Have you tried to reconfigure that to send to say your
ISP's relay server, and see if that gets sent to this particular
address. If it sends fine that way, the you know for sure it's a
Exchange issue.
Andrew,
con·cur·rent Pronunciation Key (kn-kûrnt, -kr-)
adj.
1.. Happening at the same time as something else. See Synonyms at
contemporary.
2.. Operating or acting in conjunction with another.
3.. Meeting or tending to meet at the same point; convergent.
4.. Being in accordance; harmonious.
Gameplan as in removing the 5.5 box. F/B is free/busy, the folder repository
that holds all the free/busy information for your users. At the moment it is
empty thus explaining why your users see nothing.
I thought you already had Ex2K in place running in parallel.
On 5.5, admin:folders:system
Has anyone worked on modifying(ADD/DELETE/update) GAL using ADSI APIs?
I am sure that we can modify GAL using ADSI but anybody knows if we can add
or delete an address into it too.
all suggestions are welcome.
Regards,
Mani
_
List
The GAL is automatically created. Modifying it wouldn't really be a
great idea. Actually the GAL is a LDAP query.
-Original Message-
From: Bansal, Mani (Contractor) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:44 PM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation:
I know it is not a good idea to modify GAL. but still if it is required,
can we do that programmatically using ADSI or some other APIs?
By modify here I mean with Add and delete too.
Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13,
Anyone know a way to import all organizational forms at once?
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:
I tried to say it nicely, you don't modify the GAL. You modify the
records from which the GAL is created. You want something in the GAL,
then just make sure that it matches the criteria that is defined as the
GAL.
Exchange 5.5 or E2K?
-Original Message-
From: Bansal, Mani (Contractor)
I agree, they will run great. Until one node fails and all users end up on
one node. That's when you're going to have issues.
You're missing the point that 6000 users FAR exceeds the 1900 per node
specification. In a nutshell, that spec exists because the server side MAPI
subsystem tends to
They don't have an MX record, so you can't find a server to which you can
deliver mail:
bash-2.04$ dig de.durr-usa.com mx
; DiG 9.1.2 de.durr-usa.com mx
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 37004
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0,
Ed,
I m sorry if my question was not correct.
Actually I want to add some Addresses in Global Address List through a
program using any available APIs for that purpose.
But I am not sure whether it is feasible or not. I got many document on web
which tells how to modify a record in GAL but none
Because you can make a BA-Cluster[1] for strictly IMAP/POP/OWA clients (ie
those that can connect via a FE/BE architecture). Of course, they really
recommend that if you do make a BA-Cluster for those clients, you move the
client load to front end servers
Then what you need to do is add a Custom Recipient. There are indeed
various examples of using ADSI to do so. If you just need to bulk import
them, import will do it for you.
I would recommend keeping them in a separate container for ease of
manipulation.
-Original Message-
From:
They shouldn't need an actual MX record if they have an A record. (I
know it's proper to have an MX record, but it's not absolutely
necessary.) Since de.durr-usa.com DOES have an A record, Exchange SMTP
SHOULD be able to locate it
From RFC 2821
Section 3.6
3.6 Domains
Only
best people,
Can someone tell me something more about this eventvwr message.(1456)
It seemt to be an information can i ignore it?
I get this on bridgeheadservers. (60 exchange servers)
Exchange 5.5 sp 3 with post sp3 fixes)mta, is, ds)
Hmmm... The tlot pickens..
bash-2.04$ telnet de.durr-usa.com 25
Trying 65.43.129.25...
Connected to de.durr-usa.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 ***2**0*0 *
Tell their admins to change their PIX configuration to include:
No fixup protocol
This peppermint schnapps shot sickens.
(Say that 3 times fast)
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 1:36 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Network Error During Host Resolution
Hmmm... The tlot pickens..
bash-2.04$
Could it be that the reverse-lookup record for the A record doesn't
match?
server ns1.mindspring.com
Default Server: ns1.mindspring.com
Address: 207.69.188.185
de.durr-usa.com
Server: ns1.mindspring.com
Address: 207.69.188.185
Name:de.durr-usa.com
Address: 65.43.129.25
Schnotty Dickens Not
Ah, fsck it...
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 1:40 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Network Error During Host Resolution
This peppermint schnapps shot sickens.
(Say that 3 times
From experience: the RFC and real life are a bit off. with out an MX
record exchange will look at the root of your FQDN, so it will look at
durr-usa.com and see that IP. It will not go any deeper to a machine
name. Just add an MX record and solve the problem.
--Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And
::laughing::
That is all well and good, except I have to convince you to put an MX on your
system. And you telling me it works fine for everyone else. So No!, I'm not
going to change it.
Did we get anywhere?
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:
Connecting Exchange server service and POP3 to the same mailbox in one
profile is always going to cause problems and will drive the server
loop-crazy
-Original Message-
From: wade robinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:06 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Roger,
If it's MailGuard that's causing the problem, why do emails to durr-usa.com
seem to go through OK, but not the ones to de.durr-usa.com?
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 1:36 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Network Error
I currently run Ex.5.5 under W2K. Planning our migration effort - via -
test lab..
My Ex.5.5 site has 5 servers - a site connector to another Ex.5.5 server in
our sister site.
My site has containers containing mailboxs broken down into divisions.
Questions:
1. When I add my first
Read what I wrote. It explains you problem. You have to use your top
level domain name it you dont have an MX record.
--Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond
Did I just say that out loud?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Joe Pochedley
Kevin,
Explain this one then.. Email going to [EMAIL PROTECTED] No MX record
for hofferflow.com, but they do have an A record (12.4.104.2)... They're
using their TLD as the mail exchanger but I'm still getting Network Error
durig host resloution messages...
I can telnet to hofferflow.com
It doesn't hurt to hit my head with a hammer. Therefore I will continue.
- Original Message -
From: Joe Pochedley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 2:34 PM
Subject: RE: Network Error During Host Resolution
Kevin,
Explain
That would work as it is the top of your domain.. If you used
bob.hofferflow.com you would not get anything..
--Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond
Did I just say that out loud?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Joe Pochedley
Sent:
Try a shovel. Works much better.
--Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond
Did I just say that out loud?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tony Hlabse
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:30 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Network
The other issues are what are you gaining by clustering at all? The
only things that you are covering with clustering are:
1) Hardware failure on the servers (not on the shared disk)
2) Shorter software upgrade or hotfix time (how often does this happen)
By adding clustering into the mix you
I hate that runaround. Maybe no one else has complained yet! We get that
with our own idiot helpdesk.
Caller: My group drive is down. Can you have someone check the server?
HD: No one else has called. We can't open a ticket.
Caller: You can't open a ticket for a downed server?
HD: Not
Kevin,
The problem is that it isn't working... Looking through the IMC queue I see
a message going to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the network error during host
resolution error message as the status... there's no MX record, but I can
resolve hofferflow.com just fine and their mail server answers
Make them get an Mx record. Or add one local in your DNS for them. If
that does not work then you have a routing issue, or perhaps some other
connection issue.
--Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond
Did I just say that out loud?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kevin,
Appreciate your help (really, I'm not being facesious). Trying to force
other companies to do things the right way is like trying to make my
neighbors' dog stop barking at the newspaper delivery guy at 4 in the
morning
The thing that confuses me most though, is that we've
I had this problem once getting from my Exchange2k box to sunbelt. It
would on occasion decide not to send and Q up messages. The only way for
me to get it fixed was to not send to sunbelt until after midnight that
night. The connection was being dropped 4 routers out just enough that
we could
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
