Do a search on Technet for PROFGEN.
-Original Message-
From: Gonzalez Gonzalez, Jose J
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 27 June 2002 08:08
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Migration and Outlook
Hello everyone,
We're migrating from a Exchange5.5 organization to a new Exchange2000
Leo,
What error messages do you see in the event log ?
-Original Message-
From: Leo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 24 June 2002 11:03
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Drive M missing
Thanks for the response but this is not it. I am aware of that error.
The red error is cleared
If it's a Windows 2000/XP client and it doesn't require WINS or NetBIOS then you can
disable it from the Advanced|WINS tab of the TCP/IP properties sheet of Control Panel.
If it's an NT4 machine... tough luck :)
-Original Message-
From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 14
If you're not already tied into a product you might consider using eDirectory as your
metadirectory and then use DirXML driver sets to link into AD, Exchange 5.5/Exchange
2000.
Hmmm... Novell solutions in an MS forum. Must be Friday.
Regards,
Damian
-Original Message-
From: Bendall,
Not quite!! England play Denmark tomorrow. Positive well-wishers and bonhomie are
welcome from our American cousins.
C'mon England.
-Original Message-
From: Ali Wilkes (IT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 14 June 2002 16:04
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Haiku Friday
The Wings
This forum has a higher turnover rate than McDonalds.
-Original Message-
From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 08 June 2002 00:53
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
Yeah, you're right. Even though I posted just my Exchange experience, I
Always read the label.
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 10 June 2002 13:35
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
Caution: Filling is hot.
-Original Message-
From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
S
80 TCP (HTTP)
389 TCP/UDP (LDAP)
88 TCP/UDP (Kerberos)
53 TCP/UDP (DNS)
135 TCP (RPC Endpoint)
3268 TCP (GC LDAP)
445 TCP (NETLOGON)
Plus a static port for RPC 1024
Plus Registry change on DC's for lookups
OR
443 TCP (SSL)
H.. choices choices.
-Original Message-
From:
Well... I'd check Appendix D out before you start shooting.
http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq_appxd.htm
This is a friendly reminder that the odds of a sarcastic response or outright flaming
go up significantly if the answer to your question is easily found in the index or
table of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 10:56 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Failure To Mount Store
John,
Read the Exchange 2000 Server Database Recovery document on the MS
website.. that should get you
Sweden 2 - Nigeria 1
12.30pm (GMT) England v Argentina
C'MON ENGLAND!
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:
) should have
Is this something I schould worry about? The group does not exist in our domain. We do
have the domain controller group, but not Enterprise Domain Controller...
regards
Elmer
-Original Message-
From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 11
I saw one launched on CNN last night.
-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 05 June 2002 21:21
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: MEC 2002
Are shuttles available from hotels around the conference? I don't think I
will be able to get a car.
Use the SHOWGRPS tool off the Win2K Resource Kit to establish what Security groups
they're members of.
Syntax:
SHOWGRPS Domain\User
-Original Message-
From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 06 June 2002 01:27
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Delegation Wizard
They
]] On Behalf Of Myles, Damian
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 1:29 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: MEC 2002
I saw one launched on CNN last night.
-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 05 June 2002 21:21
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: MEC 2002
was
successfully applied (something similar in german).
I will now perform the policytest and then let you know what happend.
Regards
Elmer
-Original Message-
From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 10:22 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE
/mbr won't work because it's not the boot sector that's the problem.
- Check the BOOT.INI on your working floppy and compare it with the one on the server.
If you can't check the NTFS partition then download NTFSDOS from
www.wininternals.com... What's the value for the rdisk(x)partition(x)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 06 June 2002 12:48
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: slightly OT: ExchangeServer stops every 10 minutes (Active
Direct ory issue?)
Running POLICYTEST says !!! right NOT found !!! for all DCs.
regards
Elmer
-Original Message-
From: Myles, Damian
in the same places.
I havent yet tried the emergency repair as this is my production exchange
box...would have to wait till the weekend...so i am getting my backup server
setup for me to try things...havent had the time yet thismorningbut
soon...very soon.
b
-Original Message-
From: Myles
John,
Read the Exchange 2000 Server Database Recovery document on the MS website.. that
should get you going.
-Original Message-
From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 06 June 2002 16:43
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Failure To Mount Store
All,
Server in
right... Good luck sounds like weekend fun. I will do all this on Saturday after
running the weekend backup on our servers. I will probably run GPResult and GPOTool
again tomorrow on _all_ DCs.
Thank you very much so far...
All the best
Elmer
-Original Message-
From: Myles, Damian
Turn off your firewall.
-Original Message-
From: Keith Lein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 04 June 2002 22:05
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Attempting to use MAPI over the internet
I know it isnt secure but is there a way to do it?
If so can someone show me a white paper of give
Ouch.. what a mess..
Check through your event logs... the symptoms you are describing suggest an underlying
problem, e.g. DNS... the enviable situation you're in, I suspect, is a byproduct of
that (machine account/kerberos/security problems etc), together with some new ones you
may have
I've seen this problem occur if users reply to mail addresses that are no longer valid
AD objects...
For example
User: JSmith has Delivery Options enabled to point to a AD Contact for his
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailbox.
Let's say JSmith changes his mail to yahoo.com and the original Windows Contact
And we know Webster is an authority on the use of English :-P
-Original Message-
From: Setmajer, Jerzy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 05 June 2002 16:39
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 97 Notification
Not according to Webster Dictionary
One entry found for authorise.
Of course Ed.. this is a caring forum :-)
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 05 June 2002 17:02
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 97 Notification
That should be, Because there..., if anyone cares.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech
That WAS a deliberate ploy to get him to do a NetBIOS name cache refresh wasn't it
(NBTSTAT -RR) ? :-P
-Original Message-
From: Felicity Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 04 June 2002 15:40
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook for Mac
I don't use the MAC, but I can see
original question you will eventually want to repoint your
other 55 Site and Directory Replication Connectors at the first sites E2K
SRS server, so there's no harm in doing this asap rather than wait for the
last server to go.
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL
exchange/AD admins here.
The most useful thing I found was to have a large whiteboard next to my desk
with a diagram of all the CAs! This ensured I didn't set up duplicate paths
and that all recipients would get replicated.
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL
Kudos and commiserations.
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 15 May 2002 10:32
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Arcserve 6.Junk
That's true. I kept ours at 1GB. Anymore and it struggled. Raima
crap...
I used ArcServeIT 6.x for three
: Arcserve 6.Junk
William and I are recovering Arkanusers.
-Original Message-
From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:41 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Arcserve 6.Junk
Kudos and commiserations.
-Original Message-
From: William
Sounds like a nice place to work though.
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 15 May 2002 13:33
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Private Store Permissions
Perhaps. But that reg tweak only prevents the import/export of psts and
hides
-Original Message-
From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 7:46 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Arcserve 6.Junk
May your rehab pass quickly... just sadistic curiousity..did anyone ever
manage to restore via the Disaster Recovery bootdisk (including NTFS
Can you do name resolution correctly from said 'next server inline'.. nslookup etc ?
Was all external mail working before correctly ?
What is this 'next' server ?
Regards
Mylo
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 14 May 2002 14:51
To: Exchange
Just a suggestion...
Set up one way connectors .. you'll likely save yourself a bit of pain in the process.
Perform the synch out of 5.5 into AD first and once happy with the results, create
another connection agreement back into the 5.5 environment.
-Original Message-
From: Pennell,
Message-
From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 10:45 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Active Directory Connectors
Just a suggestion...
Set up one way connectors .. you'll likely save yourself a bit of pain in
the process. Perform the synch out of 5.5
What does a netstat -an -p TCP return for Port 110 ? No entry for 0.0.0.0:110 ?
-Original Message-
From: Fred Macondray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 03 May 2002 00:31
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 5.5 Port 110 binding only to local host
Hi All,
I've got an exchange
Or 'My GAL's mad at me' from Madness ?
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 06 May 2002 13:36
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: any news on sp3?
singing
I've been waiting,
for a GAL like you,
to come into my life.
Yea, waiting, for SP2
to make me
If you can I'd disable the external mail interface for the time being, until you've
manage to cleanup internally... and avoid the wrath of your customers.
Regards
Mylo
-Original Message-
From: Les Bessant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 03 May 2002 12:29
To: Exchange Discussions
Mark,
Do you have Instant Messaging enabled ?
Regards,
Mylo
-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 03 May 2002 13:32
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook XP
Of course:-)
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL
Oops ... should read ... Mike :)
-Original Message-
From: Myles, Damian
Sent: 03 May 2002 14:30
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook XP
Mark,
Do you have Instant Messaging enabled ?
Regards,
Mylo
-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
his
install.
-Original Message-
From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 8:31 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook XP
Oops ... should read ... Mike :)
-Original Message-
From: Myles, Damian
Sent: 03 May 2002 14:30
To: Exchange
There's a technet article on this but you might want to try and turn off AutoComplete
and removing items from the Outlook name cache. This affects startup speed.
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Di Nardo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 03 May 2002 16:47
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject:
For the shaver in the bathroom next to the TCP/IP mouthwash on the shelf.
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Mynhier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 02 May 2002 15:13
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Routing multiple domain names internally
And why do we have SMTP connectors?
I think you're getting your wires crossed a little. The ESM issues you talk about a la
WINS are 5.5 issues, not Win2K issues. The reason why you're not getting mailbox
support is that the default AD Users and Computers snap-in (on the Win2K CD) does not
contain the necessary support for
Any anyone can get in a car and crash it.
And anyone can get on a server ..
H.
-Original Message-
From: Jerzy Setmajer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 02 May 2002 16:45
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Cerification question
I do not understand what is all the fuss
are we talking about.
- Original Message -
From: Myles, Damian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 11:19 AM
Subject: Dead Objects in Reply-To Messages hang SMTP Queue
Fellow forumers,
Has anyone else seen this particular problem
Roger,
Do you need an ILS Server for that ?
Regards
Mylo
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 25 April 2002 14:16
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: scheduling automatic rebooting of server
Try Netmeeting Remote Desktop. Its as good (if not
Has IIS Lockdown been run on the Exchange servers ?
-Original Message-
From: Filipe Joel de Almeida [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 25 April 2002 15:16
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA Problem
It's Internet Explorer 6 gold, hfnetchk says I have all the required hot
fixes
Fellow forumers,
Has anyone else seen this particular problem under Ex2K SP2 ?
I have a number of users who have Delivery Options enabled on their mailbox to forward
mails to additional Internet e-mail accounts. Whilst this process is being slowly
mothballed out in favour of OWA, I've
Let's hope they don't block 443 :)
-Original Message-
From: Mellott, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 24 April 2002 02:56
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: iis 5
Note: Due to the Code Red virus a great many ISP's suppling Internet access
to the Home market have blocked port
ISA is fine but in this case (SBS) your mail server is your ISA server is your file
and print etc.. Not as secure as the PIX solution... I'd go with that.
Mylo
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Di Nardo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 24 April 2002 05:08
To: Exchange Discussions
Tony,
Sorry to answer questions with questions...
Where are your WINS server(s) located ?
When you ping the remote Exchange server, is DNS or WINS processing the request ?
Does the server in question have multiple NIC's installed ?
You could try creating an LMHOSTS file on your Exchange
upgrade isp services.. is there a wizard for that ? :-}
-Original Message-
From: Byron Kennedy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 24 April 2002 14:45
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: iis 5
if your isp blocks inbound access to port 80 run your web on a different
port, or upgrade isp
to know who to upgrade to.
If your DSL and Cable folks both block 80 inbound, who else is there that
you could afford?
-Original Message-
From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 6:06 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: iis 5
upgrade isp services
Hi,
Can anyone clarify whether the 'Allow all computers which successfully authenticate to
relay, regardless of the list above' checkbox on an SMTP Virtual Server would define a
logged-on user (AD), telnetting to Port 25 of the Exchange Server as being
'authenticated'. Our test environment is
server. Which would mean a virtual
server enabled for anonymous authentication can be potentially used as a relay server
because it is 'authenticated' ???
Cheers
Mylo
-Original Message-
From: Myles, Damian
Sent: 23 April 2002 11:58
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Ex2K SMTP Settings
Substitute the word virus for user, and voila ... proliferation :)
-Original Message-
From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 23 April 2002 14:31
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: WORM_KLEZ.G Sever Impact
This virus has its own email system the reason why your admins
Message-
From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 8:47 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Public Folders
I don't know what CA do but it certainly isn't writing software.
NTBackup.
-Original Message-
From: Mark Condron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
The last good thing they wrote was Clipper.
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 18 April 2002 10:44
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Public Folders
I love CA.
-Original Message-
From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent
Hi,
Anyone know of a way to globally disable OWA access for Ex2K users. Deleting the user
is not really an option :)
I don't relish the prospect of going into Protocol Settings on every mailbox and
disabling the HTTP right for every user. Is there a quicker way ?
Regards
Mylo
Does the S in SWYNK stand for sarcasm ? :-)
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 15 April 2002 17:16
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA
Buy a $0.99 notebook and write down things you learn. [1] Are the users
aliases unique and unambiguous? Have
.
--Kevinm TSSSBE, M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond
http://www.daughtry.ca/ For Graphics and WebDesign, GO here!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Myles, Damian
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 8:19 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA
RealMovie/RealAudio www.real.com
-Original Message-
From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 12 April 2002 11:26
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: rm files
what's a .rm file? Scanmail is going ballistic blocking those
extensions...
Kim
Use the Migration Wizard provided with SP2 to move mailboxes between a 5.5
organization and Ex2K. I'd use that to create the user accounts in the Win2K
environment as well, rather than using the ADC.
Regards
Mylo
-Original Message-
From: Leo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 April
in the format domain/user name.
Are you proxying through the authentication to the back-end server?
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 26 March 2002 14:51
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA access
Like you, we don't use it where I
Mark,
What's preventing you from using UPN's in a FE/BE topology ?
Regards
Mylo
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 25 March 2002 17:59
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA access
I don't think it is possible but sure one someone will figure
.
Cheers
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 26 March 2002 09:34
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA access
Mark,
What's preventing you from using UPN's in a FE/BE topology ?
Regards
Mylo
-Original Message-
From
If you're exporting out of an existing 5.5 environment into Ex2K.. look at using the
Active Directory Connector.
Mylo
-Original Message-
From: Bob Razler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 24 March 2002 23:25
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: HELP.. I need to import 1000 contacts
1. Create a stand-alone root CA... only use an Enterprise CA if you plan on using a
large number of servers or you stand to benefit from other PKI related services/AD
integration.
2. Follow these instructions ... Q299525... Set Up SSL Using IIS 5.0 and Certificate
Server 2.0. Bear in mind
Morning/Afternoon/Evening (Delete as applicable)
This sort of jumps in and out of topic re: this forum, so apologies if I stray too
far, and bear with me .. it all ultimately relates to mail .. honest :)
I wish to use a stand-alone root CA on Win2K, certificated (is there such a word?)
Damn previous post should have been under the CA's/PKI subject header, not NDR's (was
content)
Apologies
Mylo
This sort of jumps in and out of topic re: this forum, so apologies if I stray too
far, and bear with me .. it all ultimately relates to mail .. honest :)
I wish to use a
, the entire session is encrypted. With Hotmail, ony
authentication is encrypted (I believe).
AND you ought to read Martin Tuip's article on deploying IPSec to secure the
front end to back end communication for OWA. Riveting stuff!!
-Original Message-
From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Are your users in the DMZ as well ?
-Original Message-
From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 15 March 2002 02:14
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Change password for Exchange in DMZ
So what the heck is on the internal LAN? You've moved every piece of
sensitive
-
From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 7:38 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Front-End/Back-End Topology - Ex2K
I'd be happier giving them a hotmail account than POP/IMAP..
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Posted this on the ISA forums a few days ago, but thought it might be an idea to post
for discussion.
A while back I tested a FE/BE topology with the FE server sitting on or DMZ, opening
numerous ports on our interior firewall to allow AD/GC lookups through etc. Now it
comes to actual
with your instincts. Keep it out of the DMZ.
There's lots of history on this in the archives of this list.
Missy
- Original Message -
From: Myles, Damian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 7:47 AM
Subject: Front-End/Back-End Topology
Check out this article, to ferment further conversation :)
http://isaserver.org/shinder/tutorials/intradomain_communications.htm
It looks at intra-domain communication through an ISA firewall.. anything that turns
your firewall into a cullinder comes up short in my book :)
Regards
Mylo
It does sound like a Front-end/Back-end ... if so, make sure you are using basic
(clear text) authentication... it won't work without it. Are you getting any error
messages in your event log ?
I'd be very wary of opening up Port 80 on my firewall... have you considered using SSL
as well ?
If you've got the cash look at DirXML from Novell
Regards,
Mylo
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 27 February 2002 22:37
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: bringing it all together
Avaliable options I'm aware of:
1. Compaq LDAP Directory
Let me guess... he/she wants it to be closer to the Internet - improving mail delivery
times ;)
Seriously, there's hardly any reasons why you should do this and lots of reasons why
not. If you're going to stick anything on the perimeter network relating to SMTP, make
it a machine which is
But if you've got a DMZ.. you've likely got either a tri-homed or back-to-back
firewall. Pushing the Exchange server out onto the DMZ does not make your internal
network any more secure, but does expose your bridgeheads. Plus... if you're going to
stick your Exchange boxes out on the DMZ,
It's possible to setup SMTP masquerading to mask the true domain to reply to messages.
-Original Message-
From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 27 February 2002 16:42
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: How is this possible ?
I have a user who received an email where the TO:
I was involved in a 25,000+ user rollout on 5.5 ... typically, the difference lay in
the use and function of servers (e.g. dedicated bridgeheads for X400 and SMTP traffic)
other elements to consider were working within the constraints of the NT4.0
domain model and how this might impact
That's true... also if its a greenfields project and involves workstations as well as
servers then you're likely to find a separate project team with its own project life
cycle for deployment, design and testing teams and separate rollout teams. They may
just have decided to 'scope' anyone
Have you set a smart host on one of the SMTP Virtual Servers
?(SMTP|Properties|Delivery|Advanced)... ensure direct connect box is checked.
An incorrectly configured SMTP Connector can also cause problems as some of the
settings within override those on the virtual server.
Where are the NDR's
86 matches
Mail list logo
