Well, you can set up the spamfilter to quarantine the filtered messages
for later review and if there should be a legitimate message it can be
retrieved.
I don't think there are any spamfilters which blocks 100% spam and 0%
legitimate messages.
Freddie
-Original Message-
From: Tigue
We're evaluating this companies product,
http://www.lightspeedsystems.com/. Seems quite good so far.
-Original Message-
From: Bailey, Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 9:20 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: how to cut down on spam
We use the Surf
Hi Guys,
I have read the FAQ on www.swinc.com with regard to changing the domain a
Exchange 5.5 server resides in. What I am not clear on is whether you can
run a site with some servers in one domain and some in the other or whether
all servers must reside in one domain or the other within the
... has been released to Premier customers.
Sorry, I don't have a public URL for it, but the fixes are at
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;327194, Exchange
is mentioned a couple of times.
_
List posting FAQ:
I understand that when you do a restore there is a procedure that you can
do it with the server you are restoring is online and the new server with
the same name is online. Has anyone ever restored Exchange to a new server
like that? And when you copy the logs to the new server it would still be
Actually, that sounds like the network password is out of sync between the
client and the domain.
Try closing all applications, ensuring you're logged into only one machine,
and then change your network password from that machine.
--
You can have two servers that are in separate domains in one site .
Its all a matter of making sure the required trusts are there as well as
ensuring the service account has the necessary permissions in each domain.
I did this last in 1998 and IIRC, it was pretty painless and not much
different
What are you trying to accomplish?
- Original Message -
From: Smith Thomas Contr 911 SPTG/SC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 6:30 AM
Subject: Restoring Exchange 5.5. to the same name
I understand that when you do a restore
Its absolutely possible. 3 years ago I ran a 10 site org in which all 10
sites were in local resource domains. The one caveat is that its much easier
to do with X.400 connectors than with Site Connectors.
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE
It's set to always
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 12:52 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Public folders problem with 5.5 upgrade
Then something is keeping replication from happening. How is public
folder replication
edoxs blocks 0% legitimate messages because they verify all entries in their filter
are spam.
Regards,
Orin
-Original Message-
From: Freddie Soerensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 1:24 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: how to cut down on spam
Well,
Orin
Who verifies that ?
They never make mistakes ?
Freddie
-Original Message-
From: Orin Rehorst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Donnerstag, 26. Juni 2003 15:47
To: Exchange Discussions
edoxs blocks 0% legitimate messages because they verify all
entries in their filter are
Found alink here:
http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=12129category=main
which has a link to SP4 here:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/e/6/a/e6a04295-d2a8-40d0-a0c5-241
bfecd095e/w2ksp4_en.exe
if it wrapped use:
http://tinyurl.com/f7te
Jeff
-Original Message-
From:
As always .. please test it in your lab first AND read the release notes.
** Please prefix your subject header with BETA for posts dealing with
Exchange 2003 **
--
Martin Tuip
MVP Exchange
Exchange 2000 List owner
www.exchange-mail.org
www.sharepointserver.com
[EMAIL
I have an issue with one user in that they set Out Of Office, but it doesn't work.
Although it informs them that it is on, if a mail is sent to them no OOO is received
in reply.
Server: 1 Exchange 2000 Sp3
Mailbox limit set to 280Mb
Client NT4 SP6 Outlook 98
Can anyone explain how Exchange 5.5 licensing works.
If we need to have 250 users mailboxes do we need 250
licenses? Is is based on concurrent users--for example
if a company has 1000 mailboxes but at any point only
50 people are connected to the exchange server do you
only need 50 licenses?
Its
Nothing in life is ever 100%. I would be worried about any company that
claimed their product worked 100% of the time
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Orin Rehorst
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 6:47 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE:
Death and Taxes = 100%
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:21 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: how to cut down on spam
Nothing in life is ever 100%. I would be worried about any company that
claimed their
Does it not work period, or does it just not work when receiving mail
from the Internet? Exchange 2000 (and 5.5) have a feature that allows
you to turn off Out of Office responses to the Internet. Exchange 2000
has this turned off by default. If OOF is working inside the office,
but not
CMH winners don't pay taxes :)
Bob Sadler
City of Leawood, KS, USA
WAN/Internet Specialist
913-339-6700 x194
-Original Message-
From: Mellott, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 10:34 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: how to cut down on spam
Death
The country could go into civil war, so it's possible that you wouldn't
pay taxes then since no one would be around to collect them. Unlikely
but possible. Therefore I still stand my original statement
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
You need to have as many CALs (client access licenses) as you do users who
will connect. As far as I know each user must have their own CAL. Terminal
Services works the way you're suggesting, but not this.
You might not be able to buy a 5.5 CAL anymore... You may have to buy
Exchange 2000
Going no-where near the production system until some other mug(s) have
done all the testing first. ;-)
As always .. please test it in your lab first AND read the release
notes.
_
List posting FAQ:
Yes, that's correct - the 5.5 CALs are no longer available, but the
Exchange 2K CALs entitle you to use downlevel versions of the product.
If you have 250 users and one Exchange server, purchase one server license
and 250 CALs.
_
The domain is all but irrelevant. All the Exchange servers care about
really is the sites and site connectors. It's users, particularly those
using OWA, who need to worry about the domain.
_
List posting FAQ:
Thanks for the info. I should have prepared my homework better!
Best Regards
Nizar El-Assaad
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 10:03 PM
Posted To: Lyris MS Exchange Discussions
Conversation: Exchange 5.5 IMS vs. Windows
I highly recommend going to one of the sites like mailabuse.org and
following their directions to verify that you're not an open relay BEFORE
you get blacklisted. It can be a real pain to get off all the blacklists,
and your users will scream bloody murder.
Does anyone have any experience with Panda Anti Virus on the server
(exchange or file) or desktop they would be willing to share? We are
considering them as a product to use and I am looking for good/bad
experiences.
tia
chris
_
I'd do a complete uninstall of Outlook 2002, then reinstall it, preferably
from different source media. It's possible the initial installation got a
bit hosed.
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web
I am using Interscan Virus wall as my incoming smtp server on port 25; which
then forwards my mail to the Exchange IMC on port 6000. I have been testing
against open relay testers and I always fail the one or two tests where they
spam my domain name. I am assuming this is because Interscan cannot
Some time ago (I believe it was last year), I listened to a webcast put on by
Microsoft. During the Q A, one person asked the Microsoft rep what the licensing
requirement would be for the following scenario:
5 Mailboxes all being accessed from 1 computer
His answer: 1 license because
that is what I was told as well by my rep. It is now a CAL per device that
connects. So if a person at one computer opens 5 mailboxes in Outlook it is
only 1 CAL.
- Original Message -
From: Chinnery, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June
I've tested via telnet and from home using Outlook Express and it always
replies with 550 so I think I'm good there. Just the amount of mail is
insane. I came in this morning at there's over 10,000 in the IMS Queue. I
guess eventually it will slow down...
Thanks to all.
Cheers,
Tony
I tested it using abuse.net's relay test. It looks like your good for
not being an open relay. So my opinion is that you just have a spammer
who's trying to mine for address in your company. From what I
understand, there's a new program going around the spammer world, that
bruteforce guesses
Exchange 5.5 sp4
Windows 2000 Server
I setup SSL on my OWA server. SSL is working fine. However, when I click
on the box to change my password via OWA, I get the following webpage.
The page cannot be displayed
HTTP 500 Internal server error Internet Explorer
Any ideas?
Thanks
Samantha
Search Technet for what you wrote in the subject of this note or for
article 327134.
-Original Message-
From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 1:29 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Changing Passwords using OWA
Exchange 5.5 sp4
Windows 2000
Tony,
Open up the properties page of your IMS Connection, go to the Internet Mail
tab and click on the Notifications... button. My guess would be that you
have the Always send notifications when non-delivery reports are generated
radio button clicked. If that is the case, select the second
Those aren't holes. One can legitimately accept mail for those addresses
and as long as it isn't relayed to the final destination the server is
relay secure. The designers of those tests have implemented their
testing criteria improperly.
-Original Message-
From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL
This certainly could have changed, since Microsoft is famouse for altering
their licensing arrangements. At the time I bought CALs, we had to purchase
them one per user.
If MS really has made this change, then this is definitely a good thing.
Matt
-Original Message-
From: Chris H
We used to use Netscape's mail server back when it was free for educational
use. At the time, we did have a closed relay system, but since our server
wouldn't respond with a 550, we got blacklisted. It took us quite a lot of
effort to get the various Anti-relay sites to accept that we were a
We have an Exchange 5.5 SP4 server running on an NT4 SP6a (with rollups) box
that has been very happy for a couple years now. As far as our users are
concerned all is well but for the last few weeks none of our reporting
software will deliver mail through the server. By this I mean I have an old
boggle
You tested someone else's domain at abuse.net without permission? You
do realize that if it would have failed other tests, they get put on
RBL's? Not a move I would have made. Yikes.
-
Ben Winzenz
Network Engineer
Gardner White
(317) 581-1580 ext 418
Original Message-
From:
It's the testing one. Not the one that puts people on the list
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 12:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Not Open Relay, but...
boggle
You tested someone
Check DNS and the hosts file on the Whazzup box.
- Original Message -
From: Paul Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 2:58 PM
Subject: Odd SMTP problem
We have an Exchange 5.5 SP4 server running on an NT4 SP6a (with rollups)
It's still not something I would have done. If you are going to test
someone else's domain that you don't own, then you really ought to
manually test it. If you are using a 3rd party tool, then you don't
have any control over whether they send domain names that fail the relay
tests to RBL's.
-
I believe that starting with Exchange 2003 you can buy CALs on a per-mailbox
or per-device basis; but as always, ask your MS rep to be sure. In the case
of the company I work for it's actually cheaper to license on a per-user
since lots of users access their mailboxes from multiple machines.
-
Thanks, Jim. Just so I'm clear, it's not uncommon to have over 10,000
messages sitting in the IMS queue after 8hrs? I have another site where the
IMS has hardly any messages sitting in there so this is why I am concerned.
What if I changed the MX record's IP address, would that help slow it down a
Did our homework. 300 users on Brightmail for 5 months. No false positives. With the
first one...Brightmail is outta' here!
orin rehorst
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 10:21 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Your best solution is to find out the source of those messages, and then
block the domain,
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Woods, Tony
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 1:37 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Not Open Relay, but...
H...well it would be for me, but then again, I'm not sure I have the
qualifications to answer that question. We are a small company (and getting
smaller by the day!) of roughly 600 people. If you're a big company, you
may be getting significantly larger numbers of messages sitting in you IMS
They're just using dfg.com. Don't bother your MX record.
-Original Message-
From: Woods, Tony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 1:37 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Not Open Relay, but...
Thanks, Jim. Just so I'm clear, it's not uncommon to have over
You forgot one... Tupperware = 100%
themolk.
-Original Message-
From: Mellott, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 27 June 2003 1:34 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: how to cut down on spam
Death and Taxes = 100%
-Original Message-
From:
Thanks. I've also cut down the Notifications to just 'Host not Found'.
One of the NDR's looks like this
A mail message could not be sent because the following host is unknown:
smdv231.entertainmentmail.net
The message that caused this notification was:
To:
Your mail system is accepting a mail for an invalid address (i.e.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]), and since it couldn't deliver it it's trying to send a
message back to the sender telling them it couldn't deliver the message.
But in this case, the spammer forged the sender address, so your mail server
is
Thanks, Dave. That's crystal clear.
Cheers,
Tony
-Original Message-
From: Dave Mills [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 4:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Not Open Relay, but...
Your mail system is accepting a mail for an invalid address (i.e.
[EMAIL
Hi
Am currently evaluating GFIs MailEssentials anti-spam product and would like to try
the Black List functionality. Does anyone have a recommendation for a good black
list???
Thanks in advance
Greg
_
List posting FAQ:
We use Spamcop as primary and NJABL as secondary. The most agile and accurate is
Spamcop and you can expect to get rid
of 90+% of Spam using that list.
/Luis
On 27 Jun 2003 at 12:03, Greg Marr wrote:
Hi
Am currently evaluating GFIs MailEssentials anti-spam product and would like
to try the
Is there a howto or white paper on setting up an Exchange 2003 as a second
server to an Exchange 2000 server? I was hoping to set it up and move a
couple mailboxes over to it to start playing with it.
Any gotchas or look out fors that I should know about?
Thanks,
Mike
I was hoping to set it up and move a couple mailboxes over to it to start
playing with it.
Uh huh... Yeah. We ordinarily call that a lab.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 10:59 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange
59 matches
Mail list logo
