Hi
Thanks for the responses
Any of these servers multi-homed?
No, but the 2 existing servers that are already in the Exchange Site have 2
network adapters and the Compaq teaming drivers installed
Also, I know you say DNS is working, but try putting all the respective
entries in all the
I've come across this before and for me it was a faulty switch on my
LAN. Is there any chance you could but the machines on to a hub and try
it? It may be a shot in the dark...but worth a stab.
k
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Niki
I was thinking of doing something similar
Unfortunately, the 2 existing servers are rack mounted. This 3rd 'server' is
merely a Compaq desktop, and for evaluating a fax solution, and so its not
really possible to them all together on one hub
I suppose I could take the desktop down to the
What switch is it you are using? Have you logged on to it to make sure
you are not getting errors etc
I know that some Cisco switches (if not configured correctly) can cause
problems when the nic on the server is forced to full-duplex.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi
I have reconfigured my exchange routing group by adding all the server into
the same routing group which means that I don't need any connectors. Now the
problem is that when I send a mail from one server to the other server in
the same routing group it gets delivered but when I do vice versa it
Which can be accomplished using the ClosestGC registry hack for OL2002 -
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;319206
That solves a problem, but potentially introduces additional interesting
ones such as clients talking to DS Access across a WAN instead of a
GC sitting in
Has anyone any experience with cross-site clusters using something like EMC
SRDF and Geospan software? Management is concerned that in the event of our
entire datacentre going, it would take more than 24hrs for our mail syatems
to come back online from tape restores to another set of servers.
Cant check the switch as the engineer who looks after that side isnt around
this week (politics!!!) we havent experienced any other connectivity issues
though
There was a spare slot in one of the racks, so I took this compaq desktop
down there, plugged it into the same switch as the other two
I have experienced issues with RPC servers being unavailable, the cause
being WINS lacking an entry for the Domain.
-Original Message-
From: Niki Blowfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 July 2003 11:49
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Cannot Join Existing Site - Exch5.5 -
For Exchange 2000 if you look at the replication status for public
folders in ESM and it shows a replication status of In Sync, does that
mean that the folders are being sync'd or does that mean that they are
synchronized?
_
List
Sounds like a DNS issue.
-Original Message-
From: Santhosh, H. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 3:48 AM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Exch2k mail routing inside a routing group problem
Subject: Exch2k mail routing inside a routing group problem
Hi
I have
Hi
I tried pinging from both sides it gives the FQDN from each side.
Any idea on how to do further troubleshooting
Thanks
Regards
Santhosh.H
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01,
The closest GC registry setting does indeed make sure Outlook 2002 is
talking to the GC you'd like it to. In general that's an excellent idea.
Unfortunately the original poster had the idea of forcing the client to
only use DSAccess. Once that's been forced, the client is not talking to
a GC,
Try netdiag.
-Original Message-
From: Santhosh, H. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 7:23 AM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Exch2k mail routing inside a routing group problem
Subject: RE: Exch2k mail routing inside a routing group problem
Hi
I tried
Recently, I have had problems with one of my front-end Exchange 2000 servers. It looks
like IIS gets bogged down with something. Eventually IIS stops responding and resets
itself.
Earlier this morning, I was just looking at a few things and noticed that all of a
sudden IIS got 17,000+
only 16,000 users? on an 8-node cluster?
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 8:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
But do consider revisiting this with 2003.
With Microsoft running 16,000
Does exchange install as a new site on that server, I guess it does?
This would prove that it is def. a connection issue.
I feel your frustation, I've def. had the problem a couple of times
before, but it was a few years ago.
Out of intrest, is there any fax software running, that is one thing I
Not sure what your bidget may be. Try starting with vmware.com It not the
cheapest but It will give you a starting point
From: giovanni isnardi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Cross-site clusters
Date: Tue, 01
Here are a few more things to check.
Make sure that the LDAP port is listening on port 389. You can check
this by going to the congiuration contain, protocols and checking out
the propities on the LDAP. Or you could use an LDAP browser to try and
connect to it.
Also, insert an LMHOST file in
Actually, the SCSI driver Y *will* be there. NTBACKUP is smart enough[1]
to merge the restored hardware info (drivers, etc) into the existing
system rather than overwriting them. As long as your boot/system
partitions have the same drive letter on both the backed up system and
the target system,
I'm not convinced that it means anything. I'm interested in whether anyone
else has better experience than I.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
Be sure that NIC Teaming is enabled. Just because the driver is installed
doesn't mean the NICs are configured to team.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear All,
This is a problem I had at my previous employer, and I got around it by
temporarily removing DNS
whilst joining the site, this isnt working here
We have 2 Exchange Servers on our private LAN. One has mailboxes, one has
IMC. Both Exch 5.5 SP4
Running on NT4 SP6a with only TCP/IP
I have heard of geo-clusters working, but they are extremely expensive. In
general, it only makes financial sense when your organization is already
doing it for other applications.
You might be able to offer a cheaper alternative, a script that would delete
the old mailboxes and recreate them
I had a recipient that was having problems with Outlook slowing to a crawl
and nothing I did fixed it so I archived the mailbox, renamed the account
and then recreated the mailbox using the same NT user account (we're using
Exchange 5.5). That fixed all the slowdown problems but now when he tries
It sure seems as if your DNS is not properly designed or working.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Niki Blowfield
Sent: Monday,
Hi
LDAP seems fine, I can also install Exchange 5.5 no problems standalone on
this machine
DNS is provided by a unix box
I'll try your specific LMHOSTS recommendations and let you know the outcome
Thanks a lot for the help
Regards,
Mr. Niki Blowfield
NT Administrator
Extension 482
Hi all.
I will be replacing an Exchange 2000 server. It started crashing all the time and it
is a discontinued model (HP TC4100). And even if I could get another one like that I
would not want an HP.
Is there a way to do setup.exe /disasterrecovery on a different hardware?
I mean, in order to
Trust me. Use FAQ Appendix A.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov, Andrey
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 8:54 AM
To:
Also, ommit the DNS settings from the TCP/IP properties. Eliminate
everything
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Niki Blowfield
Sent: 01 July 2003 16:27
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Cannot Join Existing Site - Exch5.5 - RPCPing
I have seen this occasionally with various 3rd party products (Anti-virus or Anti-spam
products). Do you have either of these on the Australian server? If so, which ones?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Steve Molkentin
Sent: Monday, June
I'm with you but the Execs here seem to think it has some deep meaning
of what is going on when the box gets slow. I have never really cared
that much about it in the past but now I am forced to.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003
Also Lotus doesn't help if it's on the other end.
-Original Message-
From: Morrison, Gordon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 10:11 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
I have seen this occasionally with various 3rd party products
(Anti-virus or Anti-spam products). Do
Looks like it is that time of the year again, strong pressure from the top has arrived
trying to mandate the use of the Out of Office and auto response to
the Internet. Even though we have helped cause mailing list storms in the past when it
was forced on for a sales convention (thus leading to
OOF has always been a bone of contention. My belief is that it is becoming
more accepted as time goes on. We use it here now. Nobody has been robbed
yet, and we have seen no issues.
As for auto replies to the internet, I have taken some heat for not allowing
it, but have stuck to my guns. I have
The \0x1b character must be the 16th character in the domain preload line.
I may be counting incorrectly but is there an extra space in the example
file?
-Original Message-
From: knighTslayer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 July 2003 14:41
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE:
The problem is, it does not happen when it is sent to individual persons
in the GAL. It happens when it is sent to distribution lists.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 10:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
The winmail.dat file goes
We're using Trend scanmail on both servers.
Everything I've found so far points to non-Exchange mail servers and
non-MS clients but this is from Exchange going to Exchange and all
clients are running Outlook 2002 and using rich text format.
-Original Message-
From: Morrison, Gordon
I wasn't too sure if it was 15 or 16. I may have done just 15 but I'm
sure I get away with it, or that I'm lucky!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Midgley, Ian
Sent: 01 July 2003 17:22
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Cannot Join
My employer allows OOFs , but I never set it because I dont think its
anyone's business outside of the company where I am, and I dont need to help
out any spammers by verifiing my address.
(Note that you can specify allowed OOFs by domain)
FWIW, Exchange 2003 will *not* send OOFs if the user is
uhhh... that Appendix pretty much describes installing a new Exchange
2000 server from scratch, under a different name.
I want to keep the same name and I don't want to configure it from
scratch - AD is holding al of the configuration, I just want to dump it
with /disasterrecovery
Here is the
I agree. My esteemed employer allows out of office notifications to the
Internet, so I never use the feature.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
Mine too - like Ed/Andy (and probably loads of others) I also never use
the feature, normally to you were out of the office and your OOF wasn't
on - people won't know you're not around (that's part of the point!)
At one point there was an order from the level above to enforce it on my
mailbox,
I know what you think you want, but FAQ Appendix A provides the least risky,
easiest method of doing this, with the least impact on your users.
If you don't believe me and insist on doing it the hard way, search TechNet
and Google for forklift upgrade.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance
Config:
- mydomain.net - 2 Exchange servers, 2000 Standard Edition, Windows
2000 adv server SP3, Exchange SP3, 2 GC AD controllers (4 seperate
machines total)
- remotesite.mydomain.net - 1 Exchange server, 2000 Standard Edition,
Windows 2000 adv server SP3, Exchange SP3, 1 AD controller for
Just say no.
--
From: Ed Crowley
Reply To: Exchange Discussions
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2003 11:47 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: What is the Current thinking on OOF to the Internet?
I agree. My esteemed employer allows out of office
One clarification, to get the behavior in Exchange 2003 of only sending an
OOF if the user is on the To: or CC: field you have to set the following reg
key:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\MSExchangeIS\Parameters
System\SuppressOOFsToDistributionLists
The value should be a
Hi,
In Exchange 2000, under the user properties - Exchange Advanced - Mailbox Rights,
here if I added a userID to give access to the mailbox, where is that security store?
Can I see that in ADSIEdit? Please, anyone?
Thanks!
_
It's stored in AD. Permissions on AD objects can be viewed through
ADSIEdit.
-Original Message-
From: Pham, Tuan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:01 PM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Mailbox rights security
Subject: Mailbox rights security
Hi,
In Exchange
Actually, mailbox rights are retained in the store. The mailbox permissions
in AD are a read-only copy of those in the store.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actually, mailbox rights are retained in the store. The mailbox permissions
in AD are a read-only copy of those in the store.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Are you sure? The msExchMailboxSecurityDescriptor property is a valid
security descriptor and is the property that is associated with the
Mailbox Rights tab in ADUC. These rights are not visible in the store,
but are inherited by the store.
On the other hand, anything changed in Outlook, is
From:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304935
The mailbox rights are stored on a security descriptor property that is
located on the mailbox in the information store. There is also an attribute
on the Active Directory user object, called the
From what I read, you're right. Here is my situation, I have all 1400
mailbox-enable on W2K, and I need each Mailbox Rights to have that
userID from an NT domain added with full mailbox rights. In detail:
I use ADMT to moved users and SIDHistory, therefore the userID are
identical in both domain.
As you've read... No, I can't count.
16,000 users on a 7-node cluster, which is really a 5-node cluster.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov, Andrey
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 6:16 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE:
(Can't resist - it's a 4-node cluster, with a passive same-scale server as
part of the mix g).
Which is 4,000 per node... Sounding reasonable to me so far...
Oh, and if anyone's wondering if it's real world or Microsoft/HP playing
- yes, I'm seriously considering (and have the budget to back
56 matches
Mail list logo
