had been open for so long. (that
just added to the mess.)
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 4:26 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Mail Loop at MS?
I just retired from MS after eight years in support. I know what
Your server is not set to relay for this IMAP/POP user?
- Original Message -
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 3:48 PM
Subject: 550 Error Message for our own domain?
Sorry...wrong title earlier...
It just so happens that MS has a paper or two on exactly this procedure. You
might check their website (which should have been your first option instead
of this list).
- Original Message -
From: McCullar, Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday,
Error Message for our own domain?
We don't use IMAP/POP...all straight SMTP thru Ex5.5, SP4
Jim Blunt
Network / E-mail Admin
Network / Infrastructure Group
Bechtel Hanford, Inc.
509-372-9188
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March
Nice try, but outlook does not do verification of source routing while
creating a rule.
Elmer, how are you creating the rule? From scratch or do you have an example
message open and using that as a template?
- Original Message -
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange
Subject: RE: 550 Error Message for our own domain?
Sorry Daniel...
MAPI.
Jim Blunt
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 2:36 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: 550 Error Message for our own domain?
Uh let me try
Did you check your DS settings?
- Original Message -
From: Bloom, Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 9:07 PM
Subject: 958 Routing Error
Our Exchange 2000 application logs show the following warning every hour.
Native mode W2K
: RE: Exchange 2000 in 5.5 Site
I did check that out but must be my mistake. I thought that was what this
list was for too.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 4:14 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange 2000
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?
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002
Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:32 AM
Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 in 5.5 Site
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
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:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:23 AM
Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 in 5.5 Site
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
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.
]]On Behalf Of Daniel Chenault
Sent: 13 March 2002 15:54
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 in 5.5 Site
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
or undeliverable in the
subject line. So probably this is a better approach. I will try.
Thank you for the help.
regards
Elmer
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 11:37 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Outlook hangs when
Heck, if I'd known I would have bought them out of hock; good investment
(but a little eagle-eye on business practices might be in order).
- Original Message -
From: Kenneth Walden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 4:43 PM
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish, feed him for his lifetime
Book of Hard Facts of Life
To be is to do: Plato
To do is to be: Voltaire
Do be do be do: Sinatra
;)
- Original Message -
From: Sander Van Butzelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL
Uh... relaying is turned off on the machine hosting domain2.com?
- Original Message -
From: XCNG Daily [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 2:14 AM
Subject: Relay more in detail
Hi, due to no response to my mail some days ago, I
That's because you can't have two servers with the same name on the same
network. A restore server should be on it's own network with a copy of the
production domain's DC.
- Original Message -
From: Seitz, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday,
OWA uses four ports total:
80 for inbound from the client
three dynamically-chosen (by the Exchange server) ports for communication on
the back-end.
Not sure if this helps since I don't know your configuration.
- Original Message -
From: Mike Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange
Assuming the client is using an OST, start up offline and delete the message
sitting in the outbox.
- Original Message -
From: Ronny Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 4:05 AM
Subject: Client hanging
HI !
One of
Technet is your friend.
I encourage you to do a search and find the relevant article so you can
learn the mechanism. Basically, though, an OST can only be opened by the
profile that created it.
- Original Message -
From: McCready, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL
Yes. I'd be happy to craft a solution for you. For a price...
- Original Message -
From: Irfan Malik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:18 AM
Subject: Auto Responder
Dear List,
Our Publicity department wants that when ever
Seems like one of the two is not working. First thing I'd do is remove both
of the security restrictions and see if it works in base configuration. If
so add them back one at a time to see which one isn't working. I'm betting
it's the autenticated connections.
- Original Message -
From:
.
This can't be done this way?
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:06 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange getting bounced
That's because you can't have two servers with the same name on the same
network
,
MCSE (NT W2K) + CCNA
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:25 AM
Posted To: DiscussionGroup
Conversation: Exchange getting bounced
Subject: Re: Exchange getting bounced
One cannot have two servers with the same name
As others have pointed out your IIS server got hacked; Exchange itself is
probably fine but I would bet your passwords have been compromised.
Back up Exchange and any data you want to keep. Flatten this box, reinstall
and put the ding-dang security hotfixes on it before putting it back on the
Are the clients using Word as the e-mail editor?
- Original Message -
From: Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:58 AM
Subject: RE: Conversion to Internet format failed
Mainly .docs. They are being attached both
Here in the States the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission, the folks who
regulate stock-related activities) required the retention of mail a couple
years ago. That's when MS came out with the journaling feature; that is to
say, the purpose of the journaling feature is exactly what you're looking
One cannot prove a negative. Have them give their reasoning for this and
then you can address their concerns.
- Original Message -
From: paragon400 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:32 AM
Subject: eseutil /d
I have some team
It won't hurt Exchange performance but will needlessly break any uptime
metrics.
There is one, count 'em, one difference between an offline and an online
defrag. The former moves the EOF, the latter does not.
- Original Message -
From: Ray Zorz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions
text using word or rich text
using outlook. Both the same right?
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:46 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Conversion to Internet format failed
Are the clients using Word as the e
, 2002 12:41 PM
Subject: RE: eseutil /d
Their reasoning is to save disk space (there really is not a disk space
issue...9 GB store on a 40 GB drive for example)...and to speed up
backups.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002
;)
I seem to recall having to field this question when I was on the stage at
the Boston MEC. My responses now will be the same as they were then. IOW: no
real need unless you really WANT to.
- Original Message -
From: William Lefkovics [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL
The allocated space within the EDB file is marked available for overwrite,
just as when you delete a file off a hard drive. So yes, the data is still
there but all pointers to it have been removed. Given the dynamic nature of
Exchange's database technology it'll probably be overwritten fairly
And you've done the reg modification? I know this works as I've done it
several times (actually I think I may have written that article, cant'
remember for sure).
- Original Message -
From: Finch Brett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 16,
The Everyone Full Control is the NTFS permission level, not the sharing
permission level which should be Everyone Read.
The Everyone group can be removed from both. Leave the others accounts there
alone.
- Original Message -
From: Walbert, Bryan (Bryan) % [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange
FAQ
- Original Message -
From: Arch Willingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 9:24 AM
Subject: Where is global text set for outgoing messages?
We need to append text to the bottom of every e-mail message leaving our
Exchange
The secret to how you can use saucer separation in your enterprise.
- Original Message -
From: Jennifer Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 1:23 AM
Subject: RE: Can exchange 5.5 be set up as a list server?
I know.. I KNOW!!
It will increase on it's own; you misread the event text.
- Original Message -
From: Mario Fernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 6:08 PM
Subject: RE: only 6 Mb after online defrag
Yes, plenty of disk space on the hard
I assume the CR is an internet address? It's just another SMTP message to
the IMS; the message will queue up and timeout normally.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 5:27 PM
Subject: Journalling question
The only regular maintenance I recommend is watching the logs. Exchange will
tell you when it's hurting. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Whitespace is purely your own decision. Event ID 1221 (from memory; someone
correct me if I misremembered) will tell you how much whitespace is in the
db. How
You'll need to turn on protocol logging to see the actual conversation and
data being passed to understand why your server (rather, your firewall) is
returning the error.
Speaking of which, what are you running as a firewall
(myfirewall.mydomain.com)?
Speaking further of which: it's hard to do
telnet 207.212.40.254 25
220 wormhole.dionex.com Generic SMTP handler
That ain't Exchange.
- Original Message -
From: Roger Seielstad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 11:28 AM
Subject: RE: 554 Invalid data in message
Ahhh -
, if we want to
find
out this info, we can. Just cough it up.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 9:27 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: 554 Invalid data in message
Speaking further of which: it's hard to do
Oh, ghod. Now Andy will be even more insufferable!
- Original Message -
From: Alverson, Thomas M. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 2:38 PM
Subject: RE: Changed NIC - Andy David is GODLIKE!
OK, so maybe
Number One.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 3:56 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Changed NIC - Andy David is GODLIKE!
Oh, ghod. Now Andy will be even more insufferable!
- Original Message -
From
!
Aye Sir. Remember Sir, we pee in the bowl, not around it.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 4:17 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Changed NIC - Andy David is GODLIKE!
Thank you Ensign. You may return to your
Bad, bad bidness. Guaranteed data loss. Do it right with SMTP and be done
with it.
- Original Message -
From: kedar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 5:55 AM
Subject: POP3 Connector Needed
Hi All,
I know there is a pop3
The term, I believe, is black-hole router.
- Original Message -
From: Ben Schorr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 9:54 PM
Subject: RE: Some Hosts Unreachable - Follow-up
Well, the problem is resolved but nobody's entirely sure
Hmmm the meeting room that is the resource has a full mailbox from all
the attachments sent to it in the past and it's hit your mailbox limit? Just
a WAG...
- Original Message -
From: Phil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002
It's a no-brainer to upgrade to Enterprise. Seriously. Just put the CD in
and answer the questions appropriately. Other then the requisite downtime
it's not even a blip on operations.
- Original Message -
From: Russell Hopkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL
Exchange does indeed use up all the available memory. It's designed to do
that.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 3:38 PM
Subject: Exchange 5.5 Server
I am running Exchage Server 5.5 SP4 on NT 4
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:40 PM
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 Server
Except the 'fail' part.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange 5.5 Server
Exchange does
I know of a financial company in SF that uses off-site data storage. They
told me while I was there that they have tested their DR procedures and can
be 80-90% operational within 24 hours of a complete disaster (i.e. their SF
offices being completely destroyed).
Contact me offlist if you'd like
It's a Cisco PIX firewall command to tell the PIX to stop acting like it
knows what it's doing.
- Original Message -
From: Mitchell Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:11 AM
Subject: RE: 554 errors from Hot Mail
what is
You've reached the inbox of Mike Jamison. I'm out of the office touring SE
Asia for the next two months. Contact Jim Standin at 222-555-1212.
That tells a potentially nefarious person that someone's house is empty and
unattended for two months. It also tells him the name and phone number of an
FAQ
- Original Message -
From: Chris Haaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 2:45 PM
Subject: IMC Queues
Looking in the IMC Queue for Outbound Mail awaiting delivery I see 10-20
enteries to the same address all with as the
If the FAQ was not illuminating enough may I suggest RFC-821 or 2821?
- Original Message -
From: Chris Haaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: IMC Queues
Perhaps I am dim but I can only find 1 entry with no
sent/received
message
within the site? Just wondering how to enable that to happen. Server-side
rule, or is there built-in functionality?
Thanks much.
Larry Seltzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11
Again, READ RFC-821/2821.
- Original Message -
From: Chris Haaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: IMC Queues
After finally finding the answer (I think) at Trend's site . . .
Note that this unknown
mom would be proud of you.
- Original Message -
From: Daniel Chenault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: IMC Queues
Again, READ RFC-821/2821.
- Original Message -
From: Chris Haaker [EMAIL
Reconfigure your file-level AV software to not scan the \exchsrvr directory
structure
- Original Message -
From: How, Say Chuan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 12:41 AM
Subject: Evet ID: 2186
Folks,
The following event log
More likely the recipient's mailbox is full; that's why his mailbox is
unavailable.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 8:12 AM
Subject: RE: Any Explanation? One Way Email
Looks to me like the mailbox
No, journalING, not just journal. And it has nothing to do with the
client, it's purely server-side.
- Original Message -
From: Ed Esgro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 10:50 AM
Subject: RE: BCC any sent message
Are you
Did you open the messages and see what might be so odd about them?
- Original Message -
From: Alverson, Thomas M. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 1:02 PM
Subject: Messages stuck in IMC inbound Queue - EX55 - can't stop IMC (nice
Hehe...
Line-wrapping done at the server or the sending client is an archaic
functionality. The client is now expected to understand how to display a
message. Looks like Netscape is either misconfigured or brain-dead (or
hopelessly outdated).
- Original Message -
From: Blunt, James H
That's not ADC; did you join them to the site during install? It should have
prompted for the name of the 5.5 server and the service account/password.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 8:08 AM
Subject:
just
un-installed E2K.
It only asked me at forest prep time originally.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 26 March 2002 14:13
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: ADC - Config Entry
That's not ADC; did you join them to the site during
Well, something is unusual about them. Not having access to the messages
that's the best I can offer.
- Original Message -
From: Tom Alverson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Messages stuck in IMC inbound
My thoughts exactly, but I'll hold back on the plonk. It's always amusing to
watch newbies flounder in the waves.
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Di Nardo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 6:47 PM
Subject: RE: Prep
If there
what kind of AV are you running?
- Original Message -
From: Alverson, Thomas M. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 4:28 PM
Subject: EX55 sp4: Inbound IMC messages stuck problem update
A few days ago I reported a problem with
update
Norton AV for exchange 2.5 (probably latest build - got an update about a
month ago). I suspected that right away but stopping it made no
difference
at all.
Tom
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 5:33 PM
I have to admit I'm kinda stumped here. BackupExec v8.6 running latest
driver package using a Seagate/Archive autoloaded (OEMed by Compaq). Works
fine doing file-level backups but when I create a job to backup Exchange 5.5
SP4 it gives directory not responding and store not responding yet all
Newbie alert! Fresh meat!
- Original Message -
From: Irfan Malik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 10:22 PM
Subject: RE: protocol error
Dear Mr. Doug,
Please be advise that if you don't have the answer please don't waste time
on the system doing
the
backups?
A poorly documented gottcha.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 3:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: BE 8.6
I have to admit I'm kinda stumped here. BackupExec v8.6 running latest
driver
is loading ok on Xchg machine.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 15:50
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: BE 8.6
I have to admit I'm kinda stumped here. BackupExec v8.6 running latest
driver package using a Seagate/Archive
Pointy-Haired Boss, from Dilbert.
- Original Message -
From: Etts, Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 12:06 PM
Subject: RE: Delay Outgoing Mail
Question -
What does PHB mean??
(Putting on flame retardant suit - this
Yes. Obvious when you think about it.
- Original Message -
From: Mitchell Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 12:54 PM
Subject: RE: Containers
When exmerge a mailbox to move between containers do you have to rebuild a
I can tell you from experience it's no better, but it IS more fun.
- Original Message -
From: John Matteson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 12:58 PM
Subject: RE: Comm Check
I'm also experimenting whether being a PITA is any
Most likely a Netscape user sending you mail. Netscape erroneously attempts
to login to servers that offer the AUTH command even if the Netscape client
was not configured to login to that server in the first place.
- Original Message -
From: Shane S. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange
It's malformed. It should be sent with multipart/alternative. Additionally
the line:
boundry=InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundry
should be equivalent to --=_938802==_.ALT
and finally the correct word is boundary not boundry. If that's not a
result of your munging than
If it's a failed dot.com what did they do for connectivity previously?
- Original Message -
From: King, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 9:20 AM
Subject: Remote Site Question
Hello all,
I am stuck trying to figure out
: King, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 9:36 AM
Subject: RE: Remote Site Question
There is a T1 terminated, but it is not live... yet..
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 01
Hotfixes should only be installed if you are experiencing the problem for
which the hotfix was created. Willy-nilly installing new patches just
because they exist is the mark of an amatuer.
- Original Message -
From: McCready, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL
That would be the PHB add-in.
- Original Message -
From: Ben Schorr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 4:44 PM
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 question
I once had a receptionist who asked me to send out an e-mail to let
everybody know
I do believe that's TCP returning the error; Exchange is only reporting it.
In proper OSI modeling an application knows nothing about what is happening
on the lower levels and hops is a TCP concept.
- Original Message -
From: Hansen, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL
deeply disappointed that this thread is not about beer. I
was
about to jump on this like a donkey on a waffle(1)
(1) Hi, CJ!
Dale L. Orr
Network Administrator
DoD Polygraph Institute
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002
Yes. Absolutely. Required AAMOF.
- Original Message -
From: Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 10:27 AM
Subject: RE: Upgrade problems
I think we originally installed the ADC using Windows 2k CD. Should I
It's not supported. Ex2K might install on it, but not 5.5
- Original Message -
From: Chris H [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 11:04 AM
Subject: Exchange not supported by this version of Windows
I am trying to install Exchange
You have two choices: the UI or command-line import of a CSV. Pick one.
Unless, of course, you want to do some custom coding using DAPI.
- Original Message -
From: Matt Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 10:31 AM
Subject:
Okay, Pink, settle down.
- Original Message -
From: Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 6:50 PM
Subject: RE: Recall: hello
Yes you can! With 1010220 all call up to 20 minutes are just 0.99!
-Original Message-
I'm betting these users have tons of folders or, just as bad, a small number
of folders with lots of messages in them.
When a user accesses the root of his mailbox the folders in the root level
are enumerated by the server and passed back to the client. As each folder
is accessed (either by
in the mailbox) ... that's not going to make a
difference, right? ... didn't think so.
Thanks again ... Jim
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Daniel
Chenault
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 7:54 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject
The Disaster Recovery document covers this. Found at
www.microsoft.com/exchange.
- Original Message -
From: Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 3:07 PM
Subject: Migrating form an existing Exchange 5.5 server to an upgraded
Yeah, that too.
- Original Message -
From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 3:08 PM
Subject: RE: Migrating form an existing Exchange 5.5 server to an upgraded
Exchange 5.5 server
I've always preferred a furshlugginer(1) pneumatic drill.
1) for those who remember Alfred E. Neuman
- Original Message -
From: Andy David [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 4:52 PM
Subject: RE: Need help with Exchange 5.5 to 2k
yes
- Original Message -
From: CHRIS H [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 4:28 PM
Subject: Restoring Public Folder
I was reading in the MS Disaster Recovery paper that you do not need to
name
the server the same name as the one
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Daniel
Chenault
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 10:58 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Requesting Data errors with SAN and Large Mailboxs
Perfmon should also reveal whether the SAN is somehow slowing things
down. I
know a SAN is supposed to be faster
You can remove inherited objects from child leafs.
- Original Message -
From: Carlos Dinapoli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 5:04 PM
Subject: Administrator Permissions
Hi guys I have the follow quetion:
I have one Group
401 - 500 of 733 matches
Mail list logo
