You do not need a FE/BE setup.
Any decently modern hardware will barely notice 100 users. Besides, a
FE/BE setup doesn't really reduce the CPU load on the mailbox server
unless you are doing SSL.
Also, to do FE/BE you need the enterprise version of exchange (at least
for Exchange 2000 - not sure
Matthew, you will find that the PST=BAD has become religious dogma on
this list. In reality, PST files are just another tool, and much like
any other tool (inclined plane, fire, chainsaw, etc) they are neither
inherently good nor evil.
On the other hand, while PST files can serve a useful
Simplest way I can think of is to export to a comma separated file,
import in outlook contacts folder, create distribution list, and mail
away (using the distribution list in the BCC field so that everyone on
the list can't see everyone else).
If you can export the addresses one per line, or can
If you mean native mode Exchange, then yes, OWA 5.5 will break. It will
still work for user IDs that were created BEFORE you went native, but
will not work for users created AFTER you go native. I think the ADC
might be involved in this equation somehow, but I remember this problem
bit us hard.
Whoa! Guys! Stop!
UNBIASED
*That* is the crux of the problem with this debate! Taking gifts
(including titles) WOULD BE UNETHICAL *IF* the client had the
expectation of the professional neutrality.
Most IT professionals DO NOT FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY, therefore taking
gifts IS NOT UNETHICAL AS
Off topic (more or less, but hey, IM used to be part of exchange...)
Does anyone have code for enabling a user for LCS? I'd like to
incorporate it into my user provisioning code. The Docs that come with
the LCS SDK are pretty thin.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Boy, I hate to jump in, but perhaps I can end this...
Greg, in the absolute, you are correct. Accepting *anything* of *any*
value whatsoever from third parties that stand to gain from your
relationship to your client could be considered a breach of ethics - in
the absolute. Even if the gift
Exchange WILL relay for authenticated users (by default), and it doesn't
have to be the guest account (though that is a common attack).
Have you left your Administrator account named Administrator? Do you
leak user IDs to the outside world? Web pages? Email addresses? IM
aliases? Backups run
I seem to recall that there was a bug (fixed in sp3 maybe?) where if an
SMTP packet had a forged source address of 127.0.0.1, SMTP would relay
it regardless of relay settings.
I may be misremembering the details.
Also, no even half-way correctly firewall would let this type of packet
in.
Well, actually your exchange tracking logs, IIS logs (if you are running
OWA), and your BadMail directories actually do thrash quite a bit.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 3:59 PM
To:
OK, since it is Friday, I declare that further followups to this thread
be done in Haiku!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 10:05 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise
I thing Greg is saying that a POP3/SMTP user can't send mail OUTSIDE the
organization without relaying (with authentication) turned on.
Which is another good reason to NOT expose Exchange SMTP to the outside
world. It is now apparently common knowledge among spammers that
Exchange defaults to
Coochie Coochie!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin
Blackstone
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 4:15 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5
http://www.showtimemarketing.com/images/charo.jpg
Do you mean the apps themselves, or their data files?
I've installed a couple of SBS 2K servers and don't remember any option
to change the location of ISA, Exchange, etc (but then again, I wasn't
looking for it, either).
You can, however, change the location of the applications' data files,
I would take it kindly if all would refrain from using the T word in
my presence. Makes my head hurt just hearing it.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Dixon
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 11:25 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject:
You can have Windows Messenger 5 and MSN Messenger 6 installed
side-by-side if you are running XP.
-Original Message-
From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1:58 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange IM
Outlook doesn't come with an IM
Yeah, the switch is called remove 3GB of RAM, or install Advanced
Server.
Seriously, Q266096 as interpreted by me, says that if you are running
exchange on more that 1GB RAM, you must have the /3GB switch, and that
means you must have Advanced Server. Other people on this list (who are
smarter
Blat with the -debug option
-Original Message-
From: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 4:57 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: SMTP testing tools
Does anyone know of some good remote/local applications that allow one
to test SMTP connections?
IMHO, running URLSCAN on an E2K OWA server is a losing proposition. You
have to open so much up that URLSCAN basically isn't doing anything.
I just talked to a MS guy (he did PSS support for IIS) at a security
class. He seemed pretty adamant that there was a way to use URLSCAN with
100%
The only way to do this without any external scripts or programs is to
share out the pickup directory on your Exchange server, create a
specially formatted file (with RFC822 To:, From:, Subject:, etc headers)
and drop it in the shared directory. This wont get you MIME attachments,
though.
If you
I just had the same thing happen on a client's SBS2000 server. Turns out
spammers are getting pretty clever and trying authenticated SMTP
connections using common user IDs like guest and backup.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Carrano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01,
I just schedule ntbackup nightly on my two SMTP frontends. I have each
server write it's backup file to the other server. It takes up very
little space, automatically clears the logs, and I have the backup
should I ever need it.
-Original Message-
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL
for our remote
access. Like'em, I thought they sold out.
Cheers
Paul
Standards are like toothbrushes,
everyone wants one but not yours
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 September 2003 22:55
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server
I've not examined the system for several years (I'm just a happy user
now, not and admin), but at least at one time SecurID would accept the
current code (of course),one code behind or one ahead for a total window
of 3 minutes as Roger notes.
If the gadget's clock had drifted to more than one
the wireless network.
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
I've not examined the system for several years (I'm just a happy user
now
We use a Network Appliance NetCache in the DMZ as a reverse proxy SSL
front end. Internet OWA users hit the NetCache with HTTPS, and the
NetCache decrypts and forwards HTTP to a front-end server. Works great,
but was a little pricey.
Also, because OWA likes to send out absolute URLs, there is a
Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 6:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Brick Level Backup
This is true. I've never worked with an Exchange system where the
mailbox limits were set anywhere near 2GB, so it's never been an issue
for me
Exmerge
-Original Message-
From: Aaron Shimmons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 8:19 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Brick Level Backup
Hi all
What is the best brick level backup software for Exchange 2000? I have
gave up on Arcserve as it crashes to
Tell them to look at Legato Networker. As far as I know, every networker
feature can be accessed via command line utilities.
Networker can do brick level backups of a limited number of mailboxes.
I've never tested it, though.
I'll have to say that although Networker can be a royal pain to use,
Care to learn Perl?
Net::LDAP makes it easy (well, as easy as LDAP gets...) to get the info
out of AD. You could write it as a comma delimited file, and use Outlook
to import it to the public folder.
Or you could use Win32::OLE to access MAPI functions to sync AD and the
public folder. Although
: Brick Level Backup
Exmerge fails on mailboxes over 2gig...
Tom
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:46 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Brick Level Backup
Exmerge
-Original Message-
From: Aaron Shimmons
We just installed the latest RPC fix on two test E2K systems (e2k
enterprise sp3, win2k sp4) and it killed them both. Seeing all sorts of
bad things in the event log.
Has anyone else applied this patch? Any problems?
More details to follow...
OK, now this really worries me: a second reboot clears up all the
problems. Exchange starts, and there are no new error messages in the
event log.
I'm sure glad I have mirrored drives to break before putting this on in
production!
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet
Sent: Friday
A Compaq DL380 G2 (G3 would be better) with one or two CPUs, 1GB of ram
Two 36GB drives in RAID1 for OS, swap, exchange logs (not the
greatest, but OK for 100 users)
However many 72GB in RAID5 for exchange store.
My personal opinion is to avoid 15K drives - we've had a couple of these
fail.
Not only are they breaking their email, they are doing it for naught. Spammers often
PREFER to use a target's second or third MX host. That way, their deluge doesn't have
to compete with every one else's traffic.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
Anyone remember comet Kahoutec (sp?)?
-Original Message-
From: Waters, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 2:09 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sobig.F alert
I don't, I am glad that at 3pm on Friday it is an anti-climactic virus
event.
-Original
: How to create addresses of form '[EMAIL PROTECTED] Address]
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August
AD by default will not allow LDAP searches. You must either bind or
change AD if you want users to be able to search.
As Ed mentions, you can use port 3268 on a GC to get users from all of
the domains in your forest (most attributes, anyway). Otherwise, you'll
just get users for the one domain.
I've got a Perl CGI script that allows users to manage distribution
lists they own. Interested?
-Original Message-
From: Phil Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 6:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Users managing Distribution
I interpret this:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;266096 to mean
that if you have more than 1GB of RAM in an exchange server, you must be
run it on win2k advance and use the /3GB switch.
In the past, other knowledgeable Exchange folk have argued against this
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,
Does this break OWA? OWA seems to use M:
-Original Message-
From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 11:11 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K machine services hanging on starting
More of a script than a reg hack...
It's a part of my standard
.
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 Ken Cornetet
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:25 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K
I don't think you understand what by design means in this context. What Microsoft is
really telling you is:
Yes, we realize this is a problem, and although this is still supported software,
we are not going to invest the effort to fix it.
-Original Message-
From: John Strongosky
I envision a solution like this:
Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, whatever)
where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered recipient - that
would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app
sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a flag
My experience seems to indicate that this is indeed true for OL2002 - I
assume OL2K is the same.
BTW, OL98 seems to not be able to switch GCs even after being restarted.
We recently un-GC'd a DC because we were having problems with it. All of
the OL2K clients that were using it had to be
The new free MMS only comes with the enterprise version of Windows
2003 server. It does not come with standard. I guess it must need saucer
separation for operation
-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 8:17 AM
To: Exchange
: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 1:12 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Mailbox Hacked
Whether that is the case or not depends on the server's ResolveP2
settings.
On 3/28/03 12:28, Ken Cornetet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They will get the SMTP address
They will get the SMTP address in the From field *if* they open the
message to read it. If they use the preview pane, they get no such
indication.
-Original Message-
From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 11:32 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE:
We have this in lab now. Seems to work well. Added bonus is that it only
has to go on FE servers, allowing me to keep non-microsoft code off the
mailbox servers.
-Original Message-
From: Mark Rotman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 6:20 PM
To: Exchange
No, no, no...
If you set it in IIS, Exchange will come around and whack it sooner or
later. This setting must be change in System Manager.
Drill down through Administrative Groups, Servers, Protocols,
HTTP, Exchange Virtual Server, and right click on the Exchange
virtual directory. Select
Try adding this to your start of your backup batch file:
Net use \\BPA\ipc$ /user:administrator PasswordForAdministrator
Oh, and you may want to use blat.exe to email results to you.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Quinn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 1:01 PM
To:
I'm trying to make E2K OWA available to the Internet by using a PIX to
provide address translation of a public IP address to the internal IP
address of our FE server.
The problem is that OWA seems to insist on putting a BASE
href=http://nts314.kiitest.kimball.com/exchange/kcornet/; in the head
Talk them into using a proxy server to publish their front-end server
to the Internet.
Benefits:
1. You can make the non-clustered FE server the first server in site
without, as Ed points out, having SRS in the DMZ.
2. Much easier to secure a dedicated proxy in a DMZ (one port in, one
out)
3.
I'll assume you are talking about SMIME encryption here. What you want
to do is not possible in the general sense. You need the recipient's
public key in order to encrypt their mail. You would have to have a
predefined list of all possible recipients and their public keys. Even
if you had this
: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:19 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption
Doesn't PGP suffer from the same problem, where the recipients need to
have a PGP key set up?
Erick
- Original Message -
From: Ken Cornetet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange
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 Ken Cornetet
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 12:48 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Question: ES2k
We are looking for a solution to E2K OWA's lack of a timeout feature. We
are currently looking at several options, but I thought I'd ask the list
what they are doing?
Suggestions?
Experiences (good or bad)?
_
List posting FAQ:
: E2K OWA timeouts
Timeout of what?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 9:36 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: E2K OWA timeouts
We are looking for a solution to E2K OWA's lack of a timeout
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 Ken Cornetet
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 8:36 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: E2K OWA timeouts
://www.messageware.com)? I
have not worked with them personally, but I know a couple of folks that
have had good things to say about them.
Of course, you could always wait for Exchange 2003. :-)
Jim
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Friday
at MessageWare (http://www.messageware.com)? I
have not worked with them personally, but I know a couple of folks that
have had good things to say about them.
Of course, you could always wait for Exchange 2003. :-)
Jim
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
I wouldn't exactly say they discourage it - they sell Small Business
Server that runs Exchange (and SQLServer, and ISA) on a domain
controller.
If all you will have is one Exchange server, it's not a problem.
You will see some strange errors in the event log periodically, but a
little research
likely be able to set those
attributes programmatically.
On 2/11/03 16:02, Ken Cornetet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A word of warning! If you plan on using Exchange 5.5 OWA to access E2K
mailboxes, DO NOT GO NATIVE E2K! Any new users created after going
native will not be able to access
On NT/2K/XP
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Windows
Messaging Subsystem\Profile\DefaultProfile
On 9x
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows Messaging
Subsystem\Profiles\DefaultProfile
-Original Message-
From: Chris tanner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
If you aren't afraid to write a wee bit of code, Perl and Net::LDAP can
easily do this assuming you want their mailboxes as contacts in AD.
If you want them as contacts in a public folder, you'll have to use MAPI
or the Outlook COM object.
-Original Message-
From: Arnold, Paul
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 3:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: WARNING! OWA 5.5 E2K
A word of warning! If you plan on using Exchange 5.5 OWA to access E2K
mailboxes, DO NOT GO NATIVE E2K! Any new users created
it be related to the mode of your AD Domain/s?
If all this stuff worked perfectly it wouldn't pay nearly as well. :-)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 7:43 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE
Did you call the contact object's save method?
-Original Message-
From: Chris tanner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:17 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Adding a Contact via Visual Basic
Hello All,
I am trying to write a VB 6 program to add a entry
A word of warning! If you plan on using Exchange 5.5 OWA to access E2K
mailboxes, DO NOT GO NATIVE E2K! Any new users created after going
native will not be able to access their mailbox via OWA 5.5.
We opened a PSS call on this and Microsoft confirmed that this will not
work because legacy
For various reasons we are still depending on two OWA 5.5 servers
accessing mailboxes on E2K BE servers. This has worked well up until a
few days ago. We think the problems correspond to going native E2K mode.
Any users created recently (again ,we *think* since we went native)
cannot access their
For various reasons we are still depending on two OWA 5.5 servers
accessing mailboxes on E2K BE servers. This has worked well up until a
few days ago. We think the problems correspond to going native E2K mode.
Any users created recently (again ,we *think* since we went native)
cannot access their
Well, for better worse, PSTs are the preferred solution for certain
situations here. We have instructions to show the users how to put them
on their home drives, and their care and feeding. So far, it has worked
well.
We did resolve our original problem. Most all of our users' home drives
reside
Another thing you may want to consider when moving 5.5 mailboxes to
2000: stop the pertinent ADC connection agreement. There is a race
condition possible which can cause AD to forget that the mailbox was
moved. You can start it again after the move.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley
What?
You most certainly can run Exchange 5.5 on NT4 (or 2000 server for that
matter) in an AD domain. You don't even need the DS client to do so.
If I'm understanding the original question correctly, you want to
upgrade your PDC to win2k creating (or joining) an AD forest. You want
to leave
are disks configured?
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 11:13 AM
To: Exchange
We considered doing this, but in the end decided to go with a dedicated
proxy appliance box.
Reasons?
1. Less holes in the firewalls. SSL from the internet, and HTTP to our
existing FE server.
2. The cost of the proxy appliance was comparable to server hardware +
E2K enterprise.
3. Dedicated
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 6:41 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 tuning
For logs I'm using an EMC LUN (is that still
We are testing Outlook 2002 in Windows 2000/Citrix terminal server and
ran into issues with PST files on the users' mapped home drive. We
opened a PSS call and were told that Microsoft does not support PST
files on mapped drives. The support person then quoted a q article
which basically says that
.
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 2:52 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Gonna love this...
We are testing Outlook 2002 in Windows 2000/Citrix terminal server and
ran into issues with PST files on the users' mapped home
We are considering using a Network Appliance NetCache in a DMZ as a
proxy to allow Internet access to our internal Exchange 2000 OWA
servers. Is anyone else using this setup?
How does it work out? Should we spring the extra $$$ for SSL on the
NetCache, or just let the otherwise bored FE servers
ADDUSERS.EXE from the NT4 resource kit.
-Original Message-
From: Reed, Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 2:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: USER BATCH PROGRAM FOR NT
Is there a utility that will allow you to do a batch add of users for
NT?
I think you will be OK, but if at all possible, add more RAM. I have run
win2k/E2k in 256MB and just logging in and running system administrator
thrashes the disk continuously.
The textbook says you should use two of your disks in a mirror for the
Exchange logs, but with 50 users, I don't think
And do I really want to buy all those extra expensive EMC disks? And do
I really want to have to stop the Exchange services (albeit briefly) to
do the split?
-Original Message-
From: Depp, Dennis M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 8:16 AM
To: Exchange
on an EMC SAN
According to the EMC engineers, they can do a hot split. No need to
stop and restart the services.
Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 11:07 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup solution
PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Depp, Dennis M.
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 10:26 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN
That was the word I got at MEC.
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 30
Hmmm, I've been wrestling with CDO as of late, and your question piqued
my interest. See
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;q194870 for
code.
-Original Message-
From: Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 4:03 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Oh goodness, I hope you have asbestos undies on! POP3 connectors are
generally considered the spawn of Satan in these circles. Don't let the
flames get you down, there are limited cases where a POP3 connector can
work well (such as mine: one-to-one mailboxes, no fixed IP address).
I don't think
I've re-read the original post and I think we are all missing the
problem. The problem isn't that the Linux box won't accept the one bad
message. It's that the Exchange server won't give up on the one bad
message and move on to the rest of the queue. That would seem to
indicate a problem on the
On your OWA server:
Install IE 6SP1 (or IE5.5SP2) (the following patches require it!)
Install Q313576
Install Q321006
Your ASP0115 errors will be gone.
-Original Message-
From: Sandhya Pai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 9:31 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
On your OWA server:
Install IE 6SP1 (or IE5.5SP2) (the following patches require it!)
Install Q313576 Install Q321006
Your ASP0115 errors will be gone.
-Original Message-
From: Sandhya Pai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 9:31 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
1. Use a windows 2000SP3/IIS5 server for OWA. It will be more stable,
and probably more securable.
2. Install IE 6 SP1 (You'll need it for a later step).
3. Run windows update and install all of the critical updates.
4. Plop the Exchange CD in the server. Select OWA.
5. Install Exchange 5.5 SP4
6.
By default, AD allows anonymous reads of AD info, but not searches.
-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 7:25 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: HP Digital Sender LDAP Connection
I had all of that correct. It turns
Mixed mode domains can have universal distribution groups. Mixed mode
domains can't have universal SECURITY groups.
-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 3:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Problem sending mail to
Except drug dealers, they tend to be fluent in metric.
-Original Message-
From: Drew Nicholson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 3:12 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange Disk Utilization utilities
Hey, this is america, buddy. We use feet and
Find your outlook.txt file and manually add the missing holidays. Then,
go back to outlook and re-add holidays.
-Original Message-
From: Edwards, Aaron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:17 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Holidays in Outlook 2000 Problem
!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 2:26 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: E2K front-end and back-end in different domains?
A while back I queried the group about putting E2K front-end servers
OWA 5.5 will access mailboxes on E2K servers just fine[1]. E2K OWA will
not access MSX 5.5 mailboxes.
You will want to make sure your OWA 5.5 server is at SP4. You will also
want to install Q313576 and Q321006[2] or else the ASP0115 error fairy
will come and visit your OWA 5.5 server often...
A while back I queried the group about putting E2K front-end servers in
a different domain (but same forest) than the backend servers. A couple
of people responded that they could indeed be in different domains and
were in fact running that way.
Based on that positive feedback, I decided to try
1 - 100 of 212 matches
Mail list logo
