RE: Possible hardware issue?
This may seem like a weird question for this situation: Are the clients in the same DHCP subnet? Are the exchange servers in the same subnet? I have experienced similar sorts of issues with a DC / file server... MP -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 27 March 2003 7:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Possible hardware issue? We have sort of a weird issue going on here and I am wondering if anyone else has seen this. We have an EX2000 server that runs smooth for some users and poorly for others. All the clients are different ranging from 97-2002 so I have taken the client out of the picture. We have changed NICs and the PCI slots on the motherboard and we are still getting the same issues. I performed a ping to it from a workstation that is getting good response with 64k of data and I get clean responses at about 12ms. When I perform the same ping from another workstation that is having difficulties I get a lot of time outs and when I do get responses they are more like 120ms. We have changed the cable, the switch that it goes to, and even plugged a laptop into the same switch and we are getting the same response. The switch that it plugs into is the backbone switch directly. If we move people to another exchange server everything works fine. Has anyone ever seen something like this and if so what did you do? There are also some master browser errors (event 8003) in the event log that talk about UDP but I haven't been able to make anything of them either. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Alex _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This message and any attachment to it is intended for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed by the first sender and contains information which may be confidential and/or privileged. If you receive this message and any attachment in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by electronic mail or telephone (61 2) 9211 0188. Unless you have been expressly authorised by the sender, you are prohibited from copying, distributing or using the information contained in this message and any attachment. Tab Limited (ABN 17 081 765 308) is not responsible for any changes made to this message or any attachment other than those made by Tab Limited, or for the effect of changes made by others on the meaning of this message and any attachment. Tab Limited does not represent that any attachment is free from computer viruses or defects and the user assumes all responsibility for any loss, damage or consequence resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attachment. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: calendar, tasks and contacts
It turned out to be a corruption in the mail profile on a particular desktop machine. Unique circumstances none the less. Thanks for the pointer though... MP -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 29 January 2003 3:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: calendar, tasks and contacts I would first look at permissions. Does anyone else have permissions on that folder? His mailbox? 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 Mark Peoples Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 11:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: calendar, tasks and contacts Hi, I have a really weird one here folks: This afternoon one of the users noticed that his contact list included some names that he did not know. These contacts were discovered to be a duplication of a contacts folder in another persons mailbox. The same thing has happened for the calendar and task folders. I have Symantec AV Filtering on the exchange server, with Trend running at the SMTP gateway... so I am fairly well protected and there has been no other suspicious activity to suggest viral infection. Infact, we tried deleting a contact from one users contact folder (thinking the folder may erroneously be linked in the IS). The contact was deleted from one users folder, but remained in the original owners contacts folder. I am pretty sure the users haven't copied these contacts manually. I have investigated the exchange server event logs to see if there was an IS corruption or something but the most serious thing I have in the logs is about missing user SID's. I am runnning exchange 2000 Sp3 on win2k SP3. Does anyone have any ideas? Should I just schedule to run isinteg? Thanks, MP This message and any attachment to it is intended for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed by the first sender and contains information which may be confidential and/or privileged. If you receive this message and any attachment in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by electronic mail or telephone (61 2) 9211 0188. Unless you have been expressly authorised by the sender, you are prohibited from copying, distributing or using the information contained in this message and any attachment. Tab Limited (ABN 17 081 765 308) is not responsible for any changes made to this message or any attachment other than those made by Tab Limited, or for the effect of changes made by others on the meaning of this message and any attachment. Tab Limited does not represent that any attachment is free from computer viruses or defects and the user assumes all responsibility for any loss, damage or consequence resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attachment. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This message and any attachment to it is intended for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed by the first sender and contains information which may be confidential and/or privileged. If you receive this message and any attachment in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by electronic mail or telephone (61 2) 9211 0188. Unless you have been expressly authorised by the sender, you are prohibited from copying, distributing or using the information contained in this message and any attachment. Tab Limited (ABN 17 081 765 308) is not responsible for any changes made to this message or any attachment other than those made by Tab Limited, or for the effect of changes made by others on the meaning of this message and any attachment. Tab Limited does not represent that any attachment is free from computer viruses or defects and the user assumes all responsibility for any loss, damage or consequence resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attachment. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
calendar, tasks and contacts
Hi, I have a really weird one here folks: This afternoon one of the users noticed that his contact list included some names that he did not know. These contacts were discovered to be a duplication of a contacts folder in another persons mailbox. The same thing has happened for the calendar and task folders. I have Symantec AV Filtering on the exchange server, with Trend running at the SMTP gateway... so I am fairly well protected and there has been no other suspicious activity to suggest viral infection. Infact, we tried deleting a contact from one users contact folder (thinking the folder may erroneously be linked in the IS). The contact was deleted from one users folder, but remained in the original owners contacts folder. I am pretty sure the users haven't copied these contacts manually. I have investigated the exchange server event logs to see if there was an IS corruption or something but the most serious thing I have in the logs is about missing user SID's. I am runnning exchange 2000 Sp3 on win2k SP3. Does anyone have any ideas? Should I just schedule to run isinteg? Thanks, MP This message and any attachment to it is intended for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed by the first sender and contains information which may be confidential and/or privileged. If you receive this message and any attachment in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by electronic mail or telephone (61 2) 9211 0188. Unless you have been expressly authorised by the sender, you are prohibited from copying, distributing or using the information contained in this message and any attachment. Tab Limited (ABN 17 081 765 308) is not responsible for any changes made to this message or any attachment other than those made by Tab Limited, or for the effect of changes made by others on the meaning of this message and any attachment. Tab Limited does not represent that any attachment is free from computer viruses or defects and the user assumes all responsibility for any loss, damage or consequence resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attachment. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Hard Drive Utilization
I'm guessing you have an external disk enclosure on your NF 4500... (and I'm assuming you are running w2k) If the enclosure's not full already, put 2 (or 3) more disks in the enclosure. Using ServeRAID Manager (in windows) configure the 2 new drives into a new RAID 1 array (hotspare optional). Then rescan the disks in w2k disk management. Format the new partition. When you can schedule some downtime, relocate your exchange transaction log files to the new disk (via System Mgr for e2k or exchange optimizer for e5.5). If you don't have enough resources for the above, but you have a mirrored system drive and enough space there... you can always put the log files on the system partition... (temporarily ofcourse!) HTH, MP -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2002 5:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Hard Drive Utilization Oh it's a 86565RY. -Original Message- From: Waters, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 2:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Hard Drive Utilization Sorry brain dead, I missed the netfinity part. What server are you running this in? If you have the IBM raid manager loaded you can run that within windows, otherwise you either run the config or open the box up. Your server configuration is going to determine how the drives are setup. If you get me the model of IBM server you have I can give more information. I know the 4M card very well as we have a few of them here. -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 2:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Hard Drive Utilization well we have a multi channel card but how do I do this now that everything is configured this way? -Original Message- From: Waters, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 2:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Hard Drive Utilization sorry I missed the other post. That is your problem, you really, really, really need to get a multi-channel Raid card, the put the OS, Logs, and store on separate arms. Until then you performance is only going to get worse. -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 2:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Hard Drive Utilization No everything is on the same RAID. We have Blackberry Server edition but that barely does anything we only 5 people using it. Also we have Norton AV but I have shut that off and it still runs hot. Only the drives though the processor only runs at like 20% -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 2:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Hard Drive Utilization Are logs and db on same raid 5 set? Logs should always be on Raid 1 and db on raid 5 (in an ideal environment). Logs are sequential I/O's where DB's are random I/O's. Are there other applications other than exchange running on the server? Are backups taking place at the same time (i.e. peak business hours)? -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 2:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Hard Drive Utilization Netfinity Ultra 160 4M. RAID 5 -Original Message- From: Waters, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Hard Drive Utilization What is your hard drive config? What type of SCSI controller are you using? -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Hard Drive Utilization We have about 850 people on a dual 933 pIII with 2GB of ram. There is 140GB of storage on RAID5 and Gigabit Ethernet. I ran a perfmon on the hard drives and they run at close to 100% all the time. -Original Message- From: Waters, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Hard Drive Utilization yes/no What is your hardware config? We have about 750 on one PII 450 Xeon system and are not having any performance issues at all. What else is running on this box. Need input. -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Hard Drive Utilization Does anyone else with a fairly large environment (+500 on one Server) have slowness issues related to hard drive utilization? By that I mean speed not actually how large. Are box runs very slow and the hard drives look peaked. Thank you, Alex Gonzalez Senior Systems Administrator Handleman Company [EMAIL PROTECTED] (248) 362-4400 Ext. 4914 _ List
RE: Backup Hardware
Too many negative points to mention them all really... -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, 13 September 2002 8:21 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Backup Hardware My boss has a friend that has a company that backs up their servers by taking a spare hard drive from a RAID 5 config home ever night. Currently we are using a VAX tape drive to back up our systems. He seems to think that the hard drive solution sounds like a great idea. I think it's possibly the worst idea ever created. Besides the constant vibrations, and temperature changes that the hard drives would have to withstand could everyone give me some more reasons as to why this is a bad idea. I think I just need a little ammo from other admins to help convince him. Thanks Chris Hummert Network Administrator - Albany Agency of Insurance Webmaster for Noghri.net http://www.noghri.net MS Beta tester ID #: 388366 Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contacts us. - from Calvin and Hobbes _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This message and any attachment to it is intended for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed by the first sender and contains information which may be confidential and/or privileged. If you receive this message and any attachment in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by electronic mail or telephone (61 2) 9211 0188. Unless you have been expressly authorised by the sender, you are prohibited from copying, distributing or using the information contained in this message and any attachment. Tab Limited (ABN 17 081 765 308) is not responsible for any changes made to this message or any attachment other than those made by Tab Limited, or for the effect of changes made by others on the meaning of this message and any attachment. Tab Limited does not represent that any attachment is free from computer viruses or defects and the user assumes all responsibility for any loss, damage or consequence resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attachment. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Backup Hardware
Certainly not the ideal scenario... that's for sure. For starters, What if you lose the tape on your way home and someone else picks it up? For a couple of hundred dollars a year... get the company to pay for proper offsite storage services. It's their data, so they should want to be protecting it as best they can. MP -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, 13 September 2002 8:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Backup Hardware He takes it home and puts it back in. I imagine the life of the HD is pretty short from all that rebuilding. I take the tapes home from my office to make sure their offsite in case of a fire. Any problem with that? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of EXTERN Hlabse Tony (Tek Systems;RBNA/CIT1) Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 3:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Backup Hardware What? That is one of the funniest things I have heard in a long time. Now I have heard people taking tapes home with them. What I would like to know when he gets back to work does he put it back in or does he take one out and put another in. This is too funny. Almost as good as Hey my System Idle process is at 99% can someone tell how to make it stop taking up all the CPU cycles? -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 5:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Backup Hardware My boss has a friend that has a company that backs up their servers by taking a spare hard drive from a RAID 5 config home ever night. Currently we are using a VAX tape drive to back up our systems. He seems to think that the hard drive solution sounds like a great idea. I think it's possibly the worst idea ever created. Besides the constant vibrations, and temperature changes that the hard drives would have to withstand could everyone give me some more reasons as to why this is a bad idea. I think I just need a little ammo from other admins to help convince him. Thanks Chris Hummert Network Administrator - Albany Agency of Insurance Webmaster for Noghri.net http://www.noghri.net MS Beta tester ID #: 388366 Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contacts us. - from Calvin and Hobbes _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This message and any attachment to it is intended for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed by the first sender and contains information which may be confidential and/or privileged. If you receive this message and any attachment in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by electronic mail or telephone (61 2) 9211 0188. Unless you have been expressly authorised by the sender, you are prohibited from copying, distributing or using the information contained in this message and any attachment. Tab Limited (ABN 17 081 765 308) is not responsible for any changes made to this message or any attachment other than those made by Tab Limited, or for the effect of changes made by others on the meaning of this message and any attachment. Tab Limited does not represent that any attachment is free from computer viruses or defects and the user assumes all responsibility for any loss, damage or consequence resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attachment. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Determining A User's Home Server
Look in the user properties under Active Directory or in the x5.5 administrator. E2k: Look on the exchange general tab of the user properties x5.5: look for the home server attribute on the user's mailbox. -Original Message- From: Joseph Luppens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2002 3:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Determining A User's Home Server Greetings, Does anyone know how to determine a user's home server under Exchange 5.5 and 2000? I know you can add a user under a new profile and do a lookup, but that is cumbersome! Is there a better way? Thanks! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Veritas Netbackup error on MSX 5.5
Obviously BLB's don't work too well if you miss corrupted messages in the backup. I think you've lost you're own argument for yourself It sounds like no-one (i.e. none of the major backup s/ware vendors) have truly sorted out the BLB interface properly yet... -Original Message- From: Ray Zorz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 13 June 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Veritas Netbackup error on MSX 5.5 As a couple of ultimately frustrated people have pointed out, if you have the time and the tape, and it works for you, what's the big deal? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 8:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Veritas Netbackup error on MSX 5.5 It takes a long time, and it takes a lot of tape space. And you know what? I don't think I have ever heard of anyone ever needing to use one, especially with deleted item retention. So, why waste time, tape, bandwidth (assuming you are backing up over a network) and CPU cycles? ~ -K.Borndale IT Manager Sybari Software 631.630.8569 -direct dial 631.439.0689 -fax http://www.sybari.com One man's ceiling is another man's floor |-+--- | | kanee | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | Sent by:| | | bounce-exchange-148870@l| | | s.swynk.com | | | | | | | | | 06/12/2002 10:20 PM | | | Please respond to | | | Exchange Discussions | | | | |-+--- --- | | | | To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | cc: | | Subject: RE: Veritas Netbackup error on MSX 5.5 | --- | So its wrong because other people said it is. You make your own conclusions thru experience and i have not found any issues so far with running brick level backups. So andy give me some more logical reasons as to why brick level backup is not good rather than just because other admins said so -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 8:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Veritas Netbackup error on MSX 5.5 WRONG! Issue Number Four: If Brick Level Backups are so absolutely necessary, why is it that so many Exchange Admins on this list recommend you do not use them? -Original Message- From: kanee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 7:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Veritas Netbackup error on MSX 5.5 This has been a known issue with veritas products. The mapi32.dll file is very sensitive and reports errors on messages as cannot open and thus will show the status of backup as failed. There isnt really much you can do about this, except ask the user to delete the message its referencing in the error message from his mailbox and empty it from deleted items. I have spent some time with veritas and they point fingers at microsoft and i spoke to microsoft and they point the fingers back to veritas, veritas knows of this issue and they say they are looking at a solution and should be out in the next build for backup exec8.6, i know you use netbackup so maybe you should look into their next build for netbackup. Even though this error pops up and the overall status of the backup job shows up as failed, the backup in actuality is successful, you can restore the users mailbox and the only thing missing would be those messages that it reported as corrupted or cannot open. So dont loose any sleep over this you are fine. dONT LISTEN TO PEOPLE TELLING YOU NOT TO DO BRICK LEVEL BACKUPS, ITS ABSOLUTELY NECCESSARY TO DO BRICK LEVEL BACKUPS, IT WILL SAVE YOU SO MUCH HEADACHE AND HEART ACHE LATER..TRUST ME. -Original Message- From: Kulwinder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 10:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Veritas Netbackup error on MSX 5.5 Thanks for the info. Well then, might i suggest, as Andy and no doubt other admins would recommend, that you should stop doing BLB's. Here are a few links for you to ponder over. http://mail.tekscan.com/nomailboxes.htm http://www.exchangefaq.org/recovery/0004.php3 Regards Mr Louis Joyce Data Support Analyst -Original Message- From: Kulwinder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 10 June 2002 15:21 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Veritas Netbackup error on MSX
RE: kinda OT - RAID on the exchange server
I'll second that. -Original Message- From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 5 June 2002 12:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: kinda OT - RAID on the exchange server We have a number of the x series that support that configuration. Their RAID controllers are very unpredictable and I can't believe the rate of disk failures. Serdar Soysal -Original Message- From: Andy Grafton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 11:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: kinda OT - RAID on the exchange server Raid 5e AFAIK incorporates a hot spare into the array by striping unused white space across the disks. Makes for faster access times than a raid 5 array + hot spare as the data is on more live spindles. IBM proprietary. Evil, evil, IBM. All the best, Andy -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=20 Sent: 31. maj 2002 16:28 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: kinda OT - RAID on the exchange server =20 =20 Please share what RAID5e is. I could only find two hits in=20 AltaVista on that phrase, and both used character sets not in=20 my workstation. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: kinda OT - RAID on the exchange server
Thanks Ed, I forgot RAID5e was a proprietary thing... Your suggestion has been noted... I'll see what the mgmt have to say I don't like my chances though. Judging by the response to this thread - It seems that others have had this problem on hardware other than that from the suppliers name that starts with 'I'. Makes you wonder what the point of having RAID is if it's not going to do its job under normal load and occasionally bad circumstances hmmm... FTR - after deleting, re-creating the array and running a complete restore, we were completely back online within 10 hours (over-nighter). Interesting to see if and when it happens again MP -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, 1 June 2002 12:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: kinda OT - RAID on the exchange server Please share what RAID5e is. I could only find two hits in AltaVista on that phrase, and both used character sets not in my workstation. May I suggest you change hardware vendors? My employer makes a fine line of servers that I don't believe have this problem. 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 Mark Peoples Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 11:57 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: kinda OT - RAID on the exchange server I apologise for the OT question... Has anyone experienced issues with bad striping on a RAID5e disk array? (hardware RAID) I have had this twice in the last 6 months. When a disk dies in the array it is replaced ASAP. RAID5e should be able to handle this without error right? When the RAID5e striping has errors, it registers sectors on the logical disk as bad and causes disk I/O errors - which screws (eventually corrupts) the exchange information store(s) on the logical drive and prevents backups from completing. hhhmmm ... perhaps someone can enlighten me as to why RAID5e couldn't handle the occassional defunct drive without screwing the rest of the array in the process of rebuilding itself... The hardware vendor has recommended re-creating the RAID array from scratch and restoring from backup Any thoughts? sorry again for the OT question - but I'll even throw in a Friday afternoon Haiku for good measure: Friday afternoon gotta get going home server is cactus Thanks, MP _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
kinda OT - RAID on the exchange server
I apologise for the OT question... Has anyone experienced issues with bad striping on a RAID5e disk array? (hardware RAID) I have had this twice in the last 6 months. When a disk dies in the array it is replaced ASAP. RAID5e should be able to handle this without error right? When the RAID5e striping has errors, it registers sectors on the logical disk as bad and causes disk I/O errors - which screws (eventually corrupts) the exchange information store(s) on the logical drive and prevents backups from completing. hhhmmm ... perhaps someone can enlighten me as to why RAID5e couldn't handle the occassional defunct drive without screwing the rest of the array in the process of rebuilding itself... The hardware vendor has recommended re-creating the RAID array from scratch and restoring from backup Any thoughts? sorry again for the OT question - but I'll even throw in a Friday afternoon Haiku for good measure: Friday afternoon gotta get going home server is cactus Thanks, MP _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Moving Public Folders
search technet public folder replication -Original Message- From: Cedric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 3:21 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Moving Public Folders This may be a stupid question, how do you move public folders from one exchange 2k server to another in the same domain. So that the first server can be removed. Cedric Sykes 712 Anderman Lane Suite 403 Darien IL, 60561 630-986-1528 http://www.compuonenetwork.com/ http://www.CompuOneNetwork.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: KMS administrator password
Microsoft Product Support Services. MP -Original Message- From: Laurentiu Bogdan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2002 4:18 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: KMS administrator password Who is PSS ??? -Original Message- From: Coleman, Hunter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 8:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: KMS administrator password PSS has a tool that will reset the KMS admin password for Exch 5.5; they may have one for Exch 2000 as well. Hunter -Original Message- From: Laurentiu Bogdan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 5:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: KMS administrator password I need a solution for administrator password, not for KM Server service key. I try to reinstall KMS, but still not work. I try to use the default password password, but don't work. I have an Exchange 2000 server. -Original Message- From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 1:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: KMS administrator password Checkout Q152849. I hope this will help. Nate Couch EDS Messaging -Original Message- From: Laurentiu Bogdan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 2:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: KMS administrator password I forgot the KMS administrator password. How can I recover the password ??? What is the best solution ?? Laurentiu _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
slight OT - SMTP Policy
Hi, I am looking at implmenting a new e-mail policy for my organisation. Is anyone out there who has a company policy for e-mail (exchange specific or SMTP is OK) already written and are willing to share it with me? Basically, rather than re-inventing the wheel, I am looking for a policy that someone out there already has, to use as a basis for our own. If anyone can assist, please feel free to contact me direct: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, MP _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Deleting email meeting request tentative meeting appointment in Calendar
Yes, Accept the meeting as being 'tentative' - with or without sending a response. In the advanced e-mail option in Outlook, make sure the 'delete meeting request from my inbox when responding' is selected. MP -Original Message- From: Wei Yan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 16 April 2002 9:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Deleting email meeting request tentative meeting appointment in Calendar Outlook 2000. I have a meeting request show up in my Inbox. When I open it, it would appear in my Calendar as a tentative appointment. Okay, then I close it, and delete it from my Inbox. The tentative appointment is removed as well. Is there a way to prevent the deletion? Thanks, Wei Yan _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Instant messaging and ISA firewall clients
Open the port in the ISA config -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, 13 April 2002 8:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Instant messaging and ISA firewall clients Clients behind an Exchange 2K - ISA server are able to send instant messages, but cannot receive them from Internet clients. The internet client gets: The following message could not be delivered to all recipients I did everything the Q285781 (XCCC: Configuring Exchange 2000 Instant Messaging Polling and Fixed Ports) says, but it does not give any recommendations on how to configure the client or server, besides registry entries. So, I still have the same problem. Is there any suggestion or any source I can find the explanation. Thank you Anton _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: 9318 and 9322 bind and bindback errors
Restart the MTA on affected servers. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 9 April 2002 6:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: 9318 and 9322 bind and bindback errors I've got a 5.5 organization, and the Exchange server in one of my sites is getting 9318 bind errors to all other servers in other sites. I've verified name resolution both ways, and everything seems to be in order. I'm able to net use shares both ways with no problem. I'm also able to ping by name both ways with no problem. I've added the other servers to it's hosts and lmhosts files for good measure with no luck. Any suggestions??? Will Will Zimmerman MCSE Exchange Administrator Meristar Hotels and Resorts _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exchange Configuration Tools
Atleast a set of mirrored disks for the logs for each storage group... The rest is upto you and the finance committee... -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2002 8:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Configuration Tools I agree whole heartedly, that backup and restore times are of great concern. However, backups complete in about three hours and a restore can be completed in about 4 and one-half hours, starting from loading Exchange (I keep a DR server in hot stand-by mode). We run HP's OmniBack II over a separate network, on a separate NIC card. Regarding Storage Groups, I intend on splitting the storage groups along Business Group lines, so the individual stores are smaller overall, rather than having one giant store. However, it is in this phase of the works that it all turns into vapor. Do I put an individual SG on it's own separate RAID array? It's own SCSI controller? Do I need a mirrored Transaction log drive set for each individual SG? This is where things bog down. John Matteson; Exchange Manager Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards (404) 239 - 2981 Be who you are and say what you feel because those who matter don't mind, and those who mind don't matter. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 3:56 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Configuration Tools One important factor to think about is restore time. How are you backing up? How long does it take to do a test DR? Are these times and numbers acceptable to you and more importantly management? That may drive how you setup your servers. I'm sure that you can find a single box out there to run the whole thing, but is this the wise way to do it. I would probably split that 65GB three ways into 3 boxes with a 20GB IS on each. At least split it in half. -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 12:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Configuration Tools Maybe I should have made myself more clear. I have one server for mailboxes. I have another that serves as the bridgehead for the site. I'm willing to split the functions (connections and mailboxes) the same way, but would like to keep all the mailboxes on one server, if at all possible. I'm currently reading Tony Redmond's book as well as a companion book by Pierre Bijaoui. They are helping, but its vapor right now, and I'm looking for something that can help translate theory into something that I can wrap my brain around. John Matteson; Exchange Manager Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards (404) 239 - 2981 Be who you are and say what you feel because those who matter don't mind, and those who mind don't matter. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 3:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Configuration Tools IMHO one box is certainly not enough, but 4 is probably too many. -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 12:37 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange Configuration Tools Good Afternoon to you all: I've searched the archives and have downloaded Compaq server configuration tool for use with Exchange 2000, but I seem to be futzing the configuration somehow. When I generate a configuration for what I have currently (850 users, 65 Gbyte Private information store, average mailbox is 88Mbytes, heavy users) I get back a recommended configuration of 4 servers with a total of 52 disk drives and none of the server have more than 512 Mbytes of RAM. Currently I have this all on one server (quad 400 MHZ box, 1 Gbyte of RAM) under NT 4.0 SP6a. Anyone have a suggestion on where I should look for different tools to generate up a suggested configuration for an equivalent configuration under Win2K/E2K? John Matteson; Exchange Manager Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards (404) 239 - 2981 Be who you are and say what you feel because those who matter don't mind, and those who mind don't matter. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: The day after superbowl
Not ones for multi-tasking are they? -Original Message- From: Ray Zorz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2002 2:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The day after superbowl Yeah well MINIMUM wage in the NFL is about $220,000/yr. And perhaps those tough guys ought to put the pads on and take a hit from Ray Lewis or Levon Kirkland. In the early days of the NFL, many players did play offense and defense. But as the game became more popular, it also became more sophisticated, and as such lead to specialization. The idea is it's the best of the best doing what they do best - run, catch, block, hit, throw. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Glenn Corbett Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 3:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: The day after superbowl I think the reason more Aussies dont try is that American football is right down near the bottom of the list of career choices. Soccer (Real Football), Aussie Rules, Rugby Union, Basketball, Rugby League, Baseball, and even Cricket (possibly even Curling) are above American Football. Aussie rules is a bit of a wierd game, sort of a cross between soccer (strategy) and rugby (voilence). Its those damn tight shorts I think. I dont want to spend my weekend looking at lots of men running around in tight shorts *shudder*. Basically the yanks are seen as wimpy for putting on all that padding before playing a game of footy. Rugby League (whilst I cant be called a fan), has about 1/4 the padding of AF, but the tackles are as equally violent. Also those breaks seem to interrupt the flow of the game IMHO damn, we ran 10 yards, better stop for a few minutes to compose ourselves. Oh, and whats the deal with that ghey dancing when they score a touchdown ? Are they surprised they managed to make it to the end of the field without a map ?? I can understand the carrying on with soccer, since goals are few and far between (typically). And why do they have an Defensive and Offensive team, cant the Americans manage to do both ? :) Glenn Australian by Choice - Original Message - From: Ray Zorz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:55 AM Subject: RE: The day after superbowl I dunno how that would be. While I appreciate Aussie rules football as a game, there seems to be more effort to not have the bone-jarring collisions american football encourages. But I am speaking from very limited experience. On the other hand, if the Aussies were so tough, I'd think more would try American football. I think there are a couple playing, notably a punter, and I think an offensive lineman. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: The day after superbowl
LMAO!! -Original Message- From: Sakti Chakravarty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2002 3:54 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The day after superbowl What's a superbowl? -Original Message- From: Ray Zorz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2002 15:14 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The day after superbowl Best of the best. Kind of like hiring an Exchange admin as opposed to just a network admin. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Peoples Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 8:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The day after superbowl Not ones for multi-tasking are they? -Original Message- From: Ray Zorz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2002 2:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: The day after superbowl Yeah well MINIMUM wage in the NFL is about $220,000/yr. And perhaps those tough guys ought to put the pads on and take a hit from Ray Lewis or Levon Kirkland. In the early days of the NFL, many players did play offense and defense. But as the game became more popular, it also became more sophisticated, and as such lead to specialization. The idea is it's the best of the best doing what they do best - run, catch, block, hit, throw. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Glenn Corbett Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 3:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: The day after superbowl I think the reason more Aussies dont try is that American football is right down near the bottom of the list of career choices. Soccer (Real Football), Aussie Rules, Rugby Union, Basketball, Rugby League, Baseball, and even Cricket (possibly even Curling) are above American Football. Aussie rules is a bit of a wierd game, sort of a cross between soccer (strategy) and rugby (voilence). Its those damn tight shorts I think. I dont want to spend my weekend looking at lots of men running around in tight shorts *shudder*. Basically the yanks are seen as wimpy for putting on all that padding before playing a game of footy. Rugby League (whilst I cant be called a fan), has about 1/4 the padding of AF, but the tackles are as equally violent. Also those breaks seem to interrupt the flow of the game IMHO damn, we ran 10 yards, better stop for a few minutes to compose ourselves. Oh, and whats the deal with that ghey dancing when they score a touchdown ? Are they surprised they managed to make it to the end of the field without a map ?? I can understand the carrying on with soccer, since goals are few and far between (typically). And why do they have an Defensive and Offensive team, cant the Americans manage to do both ? :) Glenn Australian by Choice - Original Message - From: Ray Zorz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:55 AM Subject: RE: The day after superbowl I dunno how that would be. While I appreciate Aussie rules football as a game, there seems to be more effort to not have the bone-jarring collisions american football encourages. But I am speaking from very limited experience. On the other hand, if the Aussies were so tough, I'd think more would try American football. I think there are a couple playing, notably a punter, and I think an offensive lineman. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource
RE: X.400 problem...
Thanks for all your feedback, I am pretty sure the DNS settings are correct. I have checked them and there's nothing amiss there. The SMTP connectors both point to the same smart host (firewall) for traffic. The e2k SP2 option looks tempting and adds a 4th option to the possible fixes: 1. re-create the e2k SMTP connector and hope that the problematic e2k server sees it. 2. apply E2k SP2 to both the e2k servers 3. upgrade the e5.5 server to e2k and then remove the IMC, followed by removing the server from the org. 4. call PSS Thanks for all of you help thus far. For a little while there... I thought I was going nuts... MP. -Original Message- From: Brian Meline [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, 1 February 2002 2:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... Since you've done everything else, have you checked your DNS setup ? Specifically, what are the entries for your preferred DNS servers ? What entries do you have for forwarders ? Are you forwarding to an ISP or other internet DNS service ? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: User reading someone else's mailbox
Look in the exchange administrator. If you are using e5.5, open configuration container, servers container, the server, information store and then check the logon's section. That will tell you who last acessed the mailbox. But Sakti is right...It'll be in the permissions. -Original Message- From: Saul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, 1 February 2002 9:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: User reading someone else's mailbox How can we find out if someone has gained access to someone else's mailbox and reading their email? I know you can look at the event log but what do I look for? What is the Category and event it would log? Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: User reading someone else's mailbox
It's not completely reliable... I agree... but it's not useless. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, 1 February 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: User reading someone else's mailbox That information is not reliable. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Peoples Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 2:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: User reading someone else's mailbox Look in the exchange administrator. If you are using e5.5, open configuration container, servers container, the server, information store and then check the logon's section. That will tell you who last acessed the mailbox. But Sakti is right...It'll be in the permissions. -Original Message- From: Saul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, 1 February 2002 9:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: User reading someone else's mailbox How can we find out if someone has gained access to someone else's mailbox and reading their email? I know you can look at the event log but what do I look for? What is the Category and event it would log? Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
X.400 problem...
Hi, I have an e2k server that routes internet-bound messages to the x400 connector and then to my E5.5 server for tranmission. When I disable the MTA and IMC on the e5.5 server, instead of messages travelling via SMTP to another e2k server in the site (with an IMS), the messages sit in the x400 queue (on the e2k server) waiting for the MTA on the e5.5 server to be started. All servers are in the same outing and administrative groups. Inbound e-mail travels the correct route (e2k-e2k). I have tried disabling the Exchange services on the e5.5 server and restarting the MTA and routing services on the offending e2k server to no avail. Any ideas on how to 'convince' the offending e2k server to natively talk to the other e2k server first? Thanks, MP _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 problem...
The design goal is to have a native e2k site (remove dependencies from, and turn off the e5.5 server). I can't do this at the moment without affecting the outbound mail transfer of 1 e2k server. Does that answer your question? MP -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 12:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... What's the design goal here? -Original Message- From: Mark Peoples To: Exchange Discussions Sent: 1/30/2002 6:16 PM Subject: X.400 problem... Hi, I have an e2k server that routes internet-bound messages to the x400 connector and then to my E5.5 server for tranmission. When I disable the MTA and IMC on the e5.5 server, instead of messages travelling via SMTP to another e2k server in the site (with an IMS), the messages sit in the x400 queue (on the e2k server) waiting for the MTA on the e5.5 server to be started. All servers are in the same outing and administrative groups. Inbound e-mail travels the correct route (e2k-e2k). I have tried disabling the Exchange services on the e5.5 server and restarting the MTA and routing services on the offending e2k server to no avail. Any ideas on how to 'convince' the offending e2k server to natively talk to the other e2k server first? Thanks, MP _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 problem...
Yes, I have: 1 e5.5 SP4 server with an IMC. This is the only thing that prevents me from turning the server off (cost of IMC = 100). 1 x exchange 2000 SP1 server with an Internet Mail Service (cost=1) 1 x exchange 2000 SP1 server that uses x.400 to communicate with the e5.5 server rather than using SMTP to communicate with the IMS on the other e2k server. This is where the problem lies... All servers are in the same org / site. HTH, MP -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 12:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... Have you installed an SMTP Connector on an Exchange 2000 server? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Peoples Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 4:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: X.400 problem... Hi, I have an e2k server that routes internet-bound messages to the x400 connector and then to my E5.5 server for tranmission. When I disable the MTA and IMC on the e5.5 server, instead of messages travelling via SMTP to another e2k server in the site (with an IMS), the messages sit in the x400 queue (on the e2k server) waiting for the MTA on the e5.5 server to be started. All servers are in the same outing and administrative groups. Inbound e-mail travels the correct route (e2k-e2k). I have tried disabling the Exchange services on the e5.5 server and restarting the MTA and routing services on the offending e2k server to no avail. Any ideas on how to 'convince' the offending e2k server to natively talk to the other e2k server first? Thanks, MP _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 problem...
It may solve the problem... but I am just anticipating the consequences if removing the server form the organization doesn't work...? Will I have mail sitting on the e2k server in the x400 connector that will have nowhere to go or will e2k figure out that there is the whole SMTP thing happening...? I was thinking about upgrading the e5.5 server to e2k server and then removing the IMC from the upgraded server - would that be a safer option...?? If that works, then I could just remove the upgraded server from the org when all is OK... On the other hand, if that doesn't work... I guess a call to PSS is in order Or is that giving myself too much work (worry) for nothing? Your feedback is appreciated! Thanks, MP -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 1:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... What makes you think that actually removing the server from the organization won't meet the desired objective? Chris -- Chris Scharff Senior Sales Engineer MessageOne If you can't measure, you can't manage! -Original Message- From: Mark Peoples [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 7:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... The design goal is to have a native e2k site (remove dependencies from, and turn off the e5.5 server). I can't do this at the moment without affecting the outbound mail transfer of 1 e2k server. Does that answer your question? MP -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 12:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... What's the design goal here? -Original Message- From: Mark Peoples To: Exchange Discussions Sent: 1/30/2002 6:16 PM Subject: X.400 problem... Hi, I have an e2k server that routes internet-bound messages to the x400 connector and then to my E5.5 server for tranmission. When I disable the MTA and IMC on the e5.5 server, instead of messages travelling via SMTP to another e2k server in the site (with an IMS), the messages sit in the x400 queue (on the e2k server) waiting for the MTA on the e5.5 server to be started. All servers are in the same outing and administrative groups. Inbound e-mail travels the correct route (e2k-e2k). I have tried disabling the Exchange services on the e5.5 server and restarting the MTA and routing services on the offending e2k server to no avail. Any ideas on how to 'convince' the offending e2k server to natively talk to the other e2k server first? Thanks, MP _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 problem...
Sorry, yes, there are 2 SMTP connectors under 'connectors'. I have named them Internet Mail Service... sorry for the confusion. 1 connector is the SMTP connector on the e2k server to the internet 1 connector is a greyed out e5.5 IMC. HTH, MP -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 1:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... What do you mean an Exchange 2000 server with an Internet Mail Service? That term does not apply to Windows 2000. I am asking specifically if you have an SMTP Connector on your Windows 2000 server. What do you show under Connectors? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Peoples Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... Yes, I have: 1 e5.5 SP4 server with an IMC. This is the only thing that prevents me from turning the server off (cost of IMC = 100). 1 x exchange 2000 SP1 server with an Internet Mail Service (cost=1) 1 x exchange 2000 SP1 server that uses x.400 to communicate with the e5.5 server rather than using SMTP to communicate with the IMS on the other e2k server. This is where the problem lies... All servers are in the same org / site. HTH, MP -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 12:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... Have you installed an SMTP Connector on an Exchange 2000 server? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Peoples Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 4:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: X.400 problem... Hi, I have an e2k server that routes internet-bound messages to the x400 connector and then to my E5.5 server for tranmission. When I disable the MTA and IMC on the e5.5 server, instead of messages travelling via SMTP to another e2k server in the site (with an IMS), the messages sit in the x400 queue (on the e2k server) waiting for the MTA on the e5.5 server to be started. All servers are in the same outing and administrative groups. Inbound e-mail travels the correct route (e2k-e2k). I have tried disabling the Exchange services on the e5.5 server and restarting the MTA and routing services on the offending e2k server to no avail. Any ideas on how to 'convince' the offending e2k server to natively talk to the other e2k server first? Thanks, MP _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 problem...
Yep - I have tried that. I removed it completely, restarted all services to make sure that there were no residual nasties... and then I watched the mail queue up in the MTA. In the end, I had to re-create the e5.5 IMC to get outbound mail flowing for the e2k server (w/out the SMTP connector on it). FTR, the routing table in site addressing (e5.5 admin) shows the e2k server (with SMTP connector) as the routing server, but in the GWART, the e5.5 IMC is the chosen SMTP route. It doesn't see the e2k SMTP connector... When i hit recalculate routing - nothing changes. That being the case, is it worth deleting the e5.5 IMC, and re-creating the e2k SMTP connector? will this make the e2k SMTP connector visible in e5.5? Easy rollback... very important. thanks for your help so far... MP -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 2:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... Well, you could probably start by removing the IMS from the Exchange 5.5 server. Easy rollback from there if needed. Chris -- Chris Scharff Senior Sales Engineer MessageOne If you can't measure, you can't manage! -Original Message- From: Mark Peoples [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 8:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... It may solve the problem... but I am just anticipating the consequences if removing the server form the organization doesn't work...? Will I have mail sitting on the e2k server in the x400 connector that will have nowhere to go or will e2k figure out that there is the whole SMTP thing happening...? I was thinking about upgrading the e5.5 server to e2k server and then removing the IMC from the upgraded server - would that be a safer option...?? If that works, then I could just remove the upgraded server from the org when all is OK... On the other hand, if that doesn't work... I guess a call to PSS is in order Or is that giving myself too much work (worry) for nothing? Your feedback is appreciated! Thanks, MP -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 1:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... What makes you think that actually removing the server from the organization won't meet the desired objective? Chris -- Chris Scharff Senior Sales Engineer MessageOne If you can't measure, you can't manage! -Original Message- From: Mark Peoples [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 7:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... The design goal is to have a native e2k site (remove dependencies from, and turn off the e5.5 server). I can't do this at the moment without affecting the outbound mail transfer of 1 e2k server. Does that answer your question? MP -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 12:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... What's the design goal here? -Original Message- From: Mark Peoples To: Exchange Discussions Sent: 1/30/2002 6:16 PM Subject: X.400 problem... Hi, I have an e2k server that routes internet-bound messages to the x400 connector and then to my E5.5 server for tranmission. When I disable the MTA and IMC on the e5.5 server, instead of messages travelling via SMTP to another e2k server in the site (with an IMS), the messages sit in the x400 queue (on the e2k server) waiting for the MTA on the e5.5 server to be started. All servers are in the same outing and administrative groups. Inbound e-mail travels the correct route (e2k-e2k). I have tried disabling the Exchange services on the e5.5 server and restarting the MTA and routing services on the offending e2k server to no avail. Any ideas on how to 'convince' the offending e2k server to natively talk to the other e2k server first? Thanks, MP _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL
RE: X.400 problem...
Yes... Did you recalculate routing? FTR, the routing table in site addressing (e5.5 admin) shows the e2k server (with SMTP connector) as the routing server, but in the GWART, the e5.5 IMC is the chosen SMTP route. It doesn't see the e2k SMTP connector... When i hit recalculate routing - nothing changes. MP _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 problem...
Ed, I just tried the clownpenis.fart thing... and when I send a message from a recipient on that e2k serverm I get the following NDR: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 1/31/2002 3:48 PM The e-mail address could not be found. Perhaps the recipient moved to a different e-mail organization, or there was a mistake in the address. Check the address and try again.The MTS-ID of the original message is:c=AU;a= ;p=TAB Limited;l=EXCHANGE3-020131044815Z-2658 MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:Ultimo:EXCHANGE1 h. The mind boggles. MP -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 3:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... What's the address space tab show on the Exchange 5.5 server? If the only entry is a star, delete the star entry and add a new one for domain clownpenis.fart. Then recalculate routing. See if messages don't go out the right path. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Peoples Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 6:57 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... Sorry, yes, there are 2 SMTP connectors under 'connectors'. I have named them Internet Mail Service... sorry for the confusion. 1 connector is the SMTP connector on the e2k server to the internet 1 connector is a greyed out e5.5 IMC. HTH, MP -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 1:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... What do you mean an Exchange 2000 server with an Internet Mail Service? That term does not apply to Windows 2000. I am asking specifically if you have an SMTP Connector on your Windows 2000 server. What do you show under Connectors? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Peoples Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... Yes, I have: 1 e5.5 SP4 server with an IMC. This is the only thing that prevents me from turning the server off (cost of IMC = 100). 1 x exchange 2000 SP1 server with an Internet Mail Service (cost=1) 1 x exchange 2000 SP1 server that uses x.400 to communicate with the e5.5 server rather than using SMTP to communicate with the IMS on the other e2k server. This is where the problem lies... All servers are in the same org / site. HTH, MP -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 12:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... Have you installed an SMTP Connector on an Exchange 2000 server? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Peoples Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 4:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: X.400 problem... Hi, I have an e2k server that routes internet-bound messages to the x400 connector and then to my E5.5 server for tranmission. When I disable the MTA and IMC on the e5.5 server, instead of messages travelling via SMTP to another e2k server in the site (with an IMS), the messages sit in the x400 queue (on the e2k server) waiting for the MTA on the e5.5 server to be started. All servers are in the same outing and administrative groups. Inbound e-mail travels the correct route (e2k-e2k). I have tried disabling the Exchange services on the e5.5 server and restarting the MTA and routing services on the offending e2k server to no avail. Any ideas on how to 'convince' the offending e2k server to natively talk to the other e2k server first? Thanks, MP _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ
RE: X.400 problem...
That being the case, is it worth deleting the e5.5 IMC (or changing the addressing to clownpenis.fart), and re-creating the e2k server SMTP connector at the same time? Will this make the e2k SMTP connector visible? -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 4:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... Then I would guess that something is wrong in the configuration of your Exchange 2000 SMTP Connector where it won't route to the Internet or it isn't seen by the other server. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Peoples Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 8:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... Ed, I just tried the clownpenis.fart thing... and when I send a message from a recipient on that e2k serverm I get the following NDR: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 1/31/2002 3:48 PM The e-mail address could not be found. Perhaps the recipient moved to a different e-mail organization, or there was a mistake in the address. Check the address and try again.The MTS-ID of the original message is:c=AU;a= ;p=TAB Limited;l=EXCHANGE3-020131044815Z-2658 MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:Ultimo:EXCHANGE1 h. The mind boggles. MP -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 3:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... What's the address space tab show on the Exchange 5.5 server? If the only entry is a star, delete the star entry and add a new one for domain clownpenis.fart. Then recalculate routing. See if messages don't go out the right path. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Peoples Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 6:57 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... Sorry, yes, there are 2 SMTP connectors under 'connectors'. I have named them Internet Mail Service... sorry for the confusion. 1 connector is the SMTP connector on the e2k server to the internet 1 connector is a greyed out e5.5 IMC. HTH, MP -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 1:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... What do you mean an Exchange 2000 server with an Internet Mail Service? That term does not apply to Windows 2000. I am asking specifically if you have an SMTP Connector on your Windows 2000 server. What do you show under Connectors? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Peoples Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... Yes, I have: 1 e5.5 SP4 server with an IMC. This is the only thing that prevents me from turning the server off (cost of IMC = 100). 1 x exchange 2000 SP1 server with an Internet Mail Service (cost=1) 1 x exchange 2000 SP1 server that uses x.400 to communicate with the e5.5 server rather than using SMTP to communicate with the IMS on the other e2k server. This is where the problem lies... All servers are in the same org / site. HTH, MP -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 12:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... Have you installed an SMTP Connector on an Exchange 2000 server? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Peoples Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 4:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: X.400 problem... Hi, I have an e2k server that routes internet-bound messages to the x400 connector and then to my E5.5 server for tranmission. When I disable the MTA and IMC on the e5.5 server, instead of messages travelling via SMTP to another e2k server in the site (with an IMS), the messages sit in the x400 queue (on the e2k server) waiting for the MTA on the e5.5 server to be started. All servers are in the same outing and administrative groups. Inbound e-mail travels the correct route (e2k-e2k). I have tried disabling the Exchange services on the e5.5 server and restarting the MTA and routing services on the offending e2k server to no avail. Any ideas on how to 'convince' the offending e2k server to natively talk to the other e2k server first? Thanks, MP _ List
RE: Removing last Exchange 5.5 from e2k
I tried uninstalling the e5.5 IMS (whilst the e5.5 server was still operational) and letting e2k SMTP services take over... Unfortunately, the messages just sat in the x.400 queue waiting to go to the e5.5 server for sending. They didn't seem interested in travelling via SMTP. I also tried restarting the routing and MTA services on the e2k server but this had no impact. Inbound e-mail still comes in... outbound mail for recipients on the e2k server sits there waiting ... I ended up having to re-create the e5.5 IMS and as soon as I did that, the mail started flowing back out Any ideas? Thanks, MP -Original Message- From: Barb McDonald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2002 11:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Removing last Exchange 5.5 from e2k Then forget about it ... just get rid of your IMS and the E2K SMTP services will tak over. -Original Message- From: Mark Peoples [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 4:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Removing last Exchange 5.5 from e2k nope. there are no mailboxes on the e5.5 server. -Original Message- From: Barb McDonald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2002 11:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Removing last Exchange 5.5 from e2k Are there any mailboxes that need to send Internet mail still on the 5.5 server? -Original Message- From: Mark Peoples [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 4:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Removing last Exchange 5.5 from e2k Also, if I remove the e5.5 IMC, will e5.5 detect the IMC on the e2k server? (the e2k connector does not appear in the connectors part of exchange administrator MP -Original Message- From: Barb McDonald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Removing last Exchange 5.5 from e2k Did you delete the 5.5 IMS? If not you need to and let the SMTP Servers in EX2k take over? As long as there is a 5.5IMS in the ORG it will be the preferred route for Internet mail. Also make sure your Firewall understands that the E2K Server(s) are allowed to send/receive SMTP via Port 25. Look at Q272314 and Q284148 for the detailed procedures for retiring the 5.5 server. -Original Message- From: Mark Peoples [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 3:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Removing last Exchange 5.5 from e2k Hi, Although I have followed Q152959.. I still have an issue: I have 2 e2k SP1 servers (one with a Internet mail connector) and 1 e5.5 SP4 server (second internet mail connector with cost=100). The Routing Calculation Server is set to be the e2k server with the mail connector. When I look at the routing tab in the Site Addressing properties on e5.5 server, the more expensive SMTP conector is listed as the SMTP route. This is affecting inbound / outbound mail for the second e2k server who still thinks the e5.5 server has the IMC. When I click re-calculate routing, nothing changes. I don't think the e5.5 server is aware of the e2k IMC... Is it just a matter of upgrading the e5.5 server to e2k, and letting exchange routing sort itself out?? Then removing the 2nd and more expensive IMC? Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.. Thanks, MP _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Removing last Exchange 5.5 from e2k
Hi, Although I have followed Q152959.. I still have an issue: I have 2 e2k SP1 servers (one with a Internet mail connector) and 1 e5.5 SP4 server (second internet mail connector with cost=100). The Routing Calculation Server is set to be the e2k server with the mail connector. When I look at the routing tab in the Site Addressing properties on e5.5 server, the more expensive SMTP conector is listed as the SMTP route. This is affecting inbound / outbound mail for the second e2k server who still thinks the e5.5 server has the IMC. When I click re-calculate routing, nothing changes. I don't think the e5.5 server is aware of the e2k IMC... Is it just a matter of upgrading the e5.5 server to e2k, and letting exchange routing sort itself out?? Then removing the 2nd and more expensive IMC? Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.. Thanks, MP _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Removing last Exchange 5.5 from e2k
Barb, No , I didn't delete the IMS on the e5.5 server, but I have stopped the service when recalculating routing...Didn't seem to make a difference. I will try the articles you specified. The firewall is OK for both IMC's on port 25. Thanks, MP -Original Message- From: Barb McDonald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Removing last Exchange 5.5 from e2k Did you delete the 5.5 IMS? If not you need to and let the SMTP Servers in EX2k take over? As long as there is a 5.5IMS in the ORG it will be the preferred route for Internet mail. Also make sure your Firewall understands that the E2K Server(s) are allowed to send/receive SMTP via Port 25. Look at Q272314 and Q284148 for the detailed procedures for retiring the 5.5 server. -Original Message- From: Mark Peoples [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 3:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Removing last Exchange 5.5 from e2k Hi, Although I have followed Q152959.. I still have an issue: I have 2 e2k SP1 servers (one with a Internet mail connector) and 1 e5.5 SP4 server (second internet mail connector with cost=100). The Routing Calculation Server is set to be the e2k server with the mail connector. When I look at the routing tab in the Site Addressing properties on e5.5 server, the more expensive SMTP conector is listed as the SMTP route. This is affecting inbound / outbound mail for the second e2k server who still thinks the e5.5 server has the IMC. When I click re-calculate routing, nothing changes. I don't think the e5.5 server is aware of the e2k IMC... Is it just a matter of upgrading the e5.5 server to e2k, and letting exchange routing sort itself out?? Then removing the 2nd and more expensive IMC? Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.. Thanks, MP _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Removing last Exchange 5.5 from e2k
Also, if I remove the e5.5 IMC, will e5.5 detect the IMC on the e2k server? (the e2k connector does not appear in the connectors part of exchange administrator MP -Original Message- From: Barb McDonald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Removing last Exchange 5.5 from e2k Did you delete the 5.5 IMS? If not you need to and let the SMTP Servers in EX2k take over? As long as there is a 5.5IMS in the ORG it will be the preferred route for Internet mail. Also make sure your Firewall understands that the E2K Server(s) are allowed to send/receive SMTP via Port 25. Look at Q272314 and Q284148 for the detailed procedures for retiring the 5.5 server. -Original Message- From: Mark Peoples [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 3:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Removing last Exchange 5.5 from e2k Hi, Although I have followed Q152959.. I still have an issue: I have 2 e2k SP1 servers (one with a Internet mail connector) and 1 e5.5 SP4 server (second internet mail connector with cost=100). The Routing Calculation Server is set to be the e2k server with the mail connector. When I look at the routing tab in the Site Addressing properties on e5.5 server, the more expensive SMTP conector is listed as the SMTP route. This is affecting inbound / outbound mail for the second e2k server who still thinks the e5.5 server has the IMC. When I click re-calculate routing, nothing changes. I don't think the e5.5 server is aware of the e2k IMC... Is it just a matter of upgrading the e5.5 server to e2k, and letting exchange routing sort itself out?? Then removing the 2nd and more expensive IMC? Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.. Thanks, MP _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Removing last Exchange 5.5 from e2k
nope. there are no mailboxes on the e5.5 server. -Original Message- From: Barb McDonald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2002 11:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Removing last Exchange 5.5 from e2k Are there any mailboxes that need to send Internet mail still on the 5.5 server? -Original Message- From: Mark Peoples [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 4:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Removing last Exchange 5.5 from e2k Also, if I remove the e5.5 IMC, will e5.5 detect the IMC on the e2k server? (the e2k connector does not appear in the connectors part of exchange administrator MP -Original Message- From: Barb McDonald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Removing last Exchange 5.5 from e2k Did you delete the 5.5 IMS? If not you need to and let the SMTP Servers in EX2k take over? As long as there is a 5.5IMS in the ORG it will be the preferred route for Internet mail. Also make sure your Firewall understands that the E2K Server(s) are allowed to send/receive SMTP via Port 25. Look at Q272314 and Q284148 for the detailed procedures for retiring the 5.5 server. -Original Message- From: Mark Peoples [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 3:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Removing last Exchange 5.5 from e2k Hi, Although I have followed Q152959.. I still have an issue: I have 2 e2k SP1 servers (one with a Internet mail connector) and 1 e5.5 SP4 server (second internet mail connector with cost=100). The Routing Calculation Server is set to be the e2k server with the mail connector. When I look at the routing tab in the Site Addressing properties on e5.5 server, the more expensive SMTP conector is listed as the SMTP route. This is affecting inbound / outbound mail for the second e2k server who still thinks the e5.5 server has the IMC. When I click re-calculate routing, nothing changes. I don't think the e5.5 server is aware of the e2k IMC... Is it just a matter of upgrading the e5.5 server to e2k, and letting exchange routing sort itself out?? Then removing the 2nd and more expensive IMC? Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.. Thanks, MP _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OWA Exchange 5.5
nope. It can be on a different server. -Original Message- From: Jan Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2002 1:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: OWA Exchange 5.5 Planning on setting up OWA for our Exchange 5.5 server. I have a newbie question - does OWA need to be on the same physical server? Thanks! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Administration Advice
1. Backups. Stay on top of backups and DR. There is a system mailbox for each information store. No need to open it. -Original Message- From: Michael Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, 21 January 2002 8:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Administration Advice Hello, Myself being relatively new to Exchange 2000 Server Administration, am looking for some very brief advice as to what the top 10 things are to stay on top of, in order to ensure a smooth running system. You can read all the books you want, but there is no better information than hearing first hand from real-world Exchange Administrators. Would some of you be so kind as to reply with a few tips as to what I need to keep my eyes on? For example, log files growing out of control, security issues that I not be aware of, etc. ALSO, there is one thing I am trying to figure out - and that is under a Mailbox Store I created, there is a Mailbox called SystemMailbox with 826 'Total Items' in there. How can I view the contents of that Mailbox? Is this possibly bounced mail messages, or something else? Thank you all VERY much for your replies, Mike _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Going to Native mode in Exchange 2000
yep, finishing it for my production network as of tonight. MP -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2002 8:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Going to Native mode in Exchange 2000 Yep... Done it in my lab several times. ;) -Original Message- From: Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 12:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Going to Native mode in Exchange 2000 Does any one have any experience in shutting down Exchange 5.5 and converting a mixed site to pure, native Exchange 2000 ? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: changing Outlook client mail profile
You would really only have a trouble if you turned off the first server ... The *last job* I was at, I did what you will be doing and it caused a bit of trouble on some clients - they needed there mail profile re-created. It may have been a registry setting somewhere on the client that caused the problem, but I can't remember the details... BTW - is this the 'better place'?? hehehe TTYS MP -Original Message- From: Sakti Chakravarty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 15 January 2002 5:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: changing Outlook client mail profile Hi folks, We are installing an Exchange 5.5 server in an organisation with one other Exchange 5.5 server and are going to move everything from the old server to the new server. There are about 150 clients running Outlook version 5.0.2653.22 or less (which I understand implies they are all on Outlook97?). After moving the mailboxes, we need to point mail profiles to the new server, what is the best way to go about doing this? We were thinking of enforcing a registry change on each Windows client using the logon script (obviously this won't work for the Macs, but that's ok). I've discovered utilities like NEWPROF ... but I wonder if anyone can confirm this is the best way? Thanks Sakti _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: usage?
Simple, Turn on message tracking for exchange. Then use message tracking from within exhcange to see what the user sent / received. -Original Message- From: Thomas Borgaila [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 10 January 2002 9:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: usage? Is there a way to determine how many emails a user send and recieves per day? I have a department boss inquiring whether this can be accomplished. I am in the process of setting up Bindview thinking that it may do the job.I recall seeing somewhere that it is possible without using any 3rd party application to determine how many emails a user sends and recieves . Appreciate any feedback. Thanks Tom _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
e2k recovery
Hi, This afternoon my e2k server decided to kill itself with a corrupted log file. I received the following error in the application event log: Event Type: Error Event Source: ESE98 Event Category: General Event ID: 486 Date: 1/3/2002 Time: 2:29:38 PM User: N/A Computer: EXCHANGE Description: Information Store (2568) An attempt to move the file E:\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\E00.log to E:\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\E00075C2.log failed with system error 2 (0x0002): The system cannot find the file specified. . The move file operation will fail with error -1811 (0xf8ed). This was followed by a few more messages which basically dismounted the mailbox stores in the primary storage group (I can post these if people are interested). I am following the advice in Technet article q301438 .. but was wondering if anyone had any other ideas or if anyone else out there has experienced this or similar... MP _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Monitoring email
*suggestively* advise you manager that you follow orders... suggestion Exmerge their mailbox and give it to the appropriate authority at your company. Hence it becomes thier problem. Chnaces are whatever the accused have sent is still in their sent / deleted items folders (even better if you if you have deleted item retention time turned on to 14-30+ days...). /suggestion -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 20 December 2001 2:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Monitoring email Fire them You could turn on logging in the IMS and crank it up. -Original Message- From: Brian Dugas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 7:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Monitoring email Hi, Thanks for the suggestion, but short of that, what could I do first thing tomorrow morning? What kind of logging is Exchange capable of? -Original Message- From: Thomas Di Nardo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 8:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Monitoring email Journaling. It is probably best to build a monitoring server and enable journaling on that server. Move the mailboxes in question to that server. Take a look at Q239427 Tom. -Original Message- From: Brian Dugas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 7:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Monitoring email I need to monitor emails for 4 people in the company. Both incoming and outgoing. We think they are giving out trade secrets. What is the best method for doing this? We are running Exchange 5.5 sp3 NT4.0 sp6 Brian _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: 552 Exceeded Local Data Allocation Limit
I would say that whereever you are sending the message has a smaller mailbox limit than the size of the message that is being sent... but a copy of the NDR would certainly help with a precise answer... MP -Original Message- From: Robert V [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2001 8:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: 552 Exceeded Local Data Allocation Limit Have Exchange 5.5 Server on NT 4.0 SP6A, clients are Outlook 98 and also 2000 - problem is occuring with both. Basically we have users who are trying to send large attachments, in this example 14mb, to an outside address. The system administrator returns the message as undeliverable, stating a 552 Exceeded local data allocation limit I have tested sending this message to an aol address, and another business address, and it fails each time. It seems this undeliverable message is coming from our system, however our system does not have a limit set for the internet connector. The user mailboxes on our system are not nearing their limit either. I don't see anything in our event log either. Any thoughts? Rob VadeBonCoeur [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: 552 Exceeded Local Data Allocation Limit
How much space is available at the aol address for e-mails? Is presume it is NOT unrestricted... Can you send through smaller attachments to the same or different addresses? Are you able to break up the attachment into files that are small enough to not warrant ftp'ing them? (hint) MP -Original Message- From: Robert V [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2001 9:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: 552 Exceeded Local Data Allocation Limit I would have never guessed...;) Thank you for enlightening me! ;) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: 552 Exceeded Local Data Allocation Limit
I totally agree. 14 mb is way too big for a single e-mail. Breaking it down into a few attachments of 2-3mb's each though would be OK by me (assuming the mailbox could handle that.) MP -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2001 10:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: 552 Exceeded Local Data Allocation Limit A 14MB file shouldn't be emailed. It should be FTP'd or put on a web site with a link. I would be pissed if people were pumping files that size to my users. One time, sure, constant, no way. -Original Message- From: Mark Peoples [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 2:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: 552 Exceeded Local Data Allocation Limit How much space is available at the aol address for e-mails? Is presume it is NOT unrestricted... Can you send through smaller attachments to the same or different addresses? Are you able to break up the attachment into files that are small enough to not warrant ftp'ing them? (hint) MP -Original Message- From: Robert V [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2001 9:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: 552 Exceeded Local Data Allocation Limit I would have never guessed...;) Thank you for enlightening me! ;) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Email Scanners
Trend. I am looking at doing the same thing and Trend seems to be a nice way to do it. As Kelly said, Sybari look good too... regards, MP -Original Message- From: Network Issues [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, 7 December 2001 10:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Email Scanners Sorry... We are running Exchange 5.5 / SP4 and the guys upstairs want to be able to block attachments, scan for viruses and scan the content of the email for what management deems inappropriate. Thanks again. -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 3:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Email Scanners And we're all partial to Kelly, except that damn ugly sig that she uses. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 3:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Email Scanners The FAQ lists Trend... but I happen to be partial to Antigen from Sybari Software :) ~ -K.Borndale Network Administrator Sybari Software 631.630.8569 -direct dial 631.439.0689 -fax http://www.sybari.com One man's ceiling is another man's floor |+--- || Network Issues | || [EMAIL PROTECTED]| || om | || Sent by: | || bounce-exchange-148870@ls| || .swynk.com | || | || | || 12/06/2001 06:14 PM | || Please respond to| || Exchange Discussions | || | |+--- --- | | | | To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | cc: | | Subject: Email Scanners | --- | I have been tasked to find an email scanner for our enterprise. I was wondering which one of the many products available do you recommend? Your advice is greatly appreciated. Thanks. Ron _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: out of space
If you can, add some more hard disks to the server... Otherwise, to free the space you have reclaimed by deleting stuff - you need to run an offline defrag of the information store. This will only be a temporary solution though. To run an offline defrag - eseutil /d /ispriv -Original Message- From: Aristotle Zoulas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2001 8:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: out of space We are running 5.5 and we are nearly out of space. We deleted about 500mb of mailbox recourses but our free space has not increased. Do we need to reboot the machine for the space to freed? TIA _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: E2k in DMZ?
Cool. That's what I needed to hear! Thanks Tom Ed. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, 26 November 2001 2:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k in DMZ? The SMTP Service that comes with the NT 4.0 Option Pack, or the equivalent that comes with IIS and Windows 2000 Server can store as much mail as you have hard disk space. I think it would be very stupid and overly costly to put an Exchange server of any version in a DMZ except possibly for a Windows 2000 front-end server, which you don't need for the application you're describing. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation (soon to be HP) All your base are belong to us. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Peoples Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 7:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k in DMZ? Tom, The idea is to have a dedicated mail server (which we have already purchased) in the DMZ that is capable of storing a large amount of e-mail... just in case the ever reliable exchange server on the internal network falls over... (Just as you have suggested) It was also my initiative to put AV software on the box... I had looked at Trend and recommended Scanmail for e2k as the AV solution. Any more thoughts? MP _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Ban Outlook
I don't know if anyone else has noticed ... but this thread of
discussion is getting no-where really really fast. we can all sit here
and argue and go in circles for ever OR
We can just leave it at:
If you don't like outlook and funcionality that it provides when hooked
into an exchange backend because of whatever reason - then don't use it
and feel free to find an alternative mail client that will best suit the
needs of your company.
If you are one of the many admins who don't mind MS and their continual
patching (of both outlook and related systems), and whose clients
(users) use outlook and manage to take advantage of it's functionality
then great. Outlook is a widely used prodcut that offers a great deal of
flexibility. Part of that popularity and flexibility means that it will
be a target of mailicious attacks.
As a proactive admin you should be guarding yourself and your users
against such activity - Even if outlook is not your preferred mail
client.
Education is the key. Self-education in regard to knowing what Exchange
and Outlook are capable of and how best to implement it to protect
yourself, users and your company. Education for the users so they may
take advantage of the many features available to them. Education of
others by sharing your knowledge so that others can benefit from your
good / bad experiences.
MP.
-Original Message-
From: Ben Schorr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2001 9:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Ban Outlook
Most of my users only use the bathroom a couple of times a day too, but
I
consider bathrooms to be an important feature to have. Our users make
quite
a bit of use of Outlook functionality, actually. E-mail may be the most
common use, but we also schedule all of our conference rooms and common
assets via Outlook, we do meeting invitations, use public folders, tasks
folders and a few even make use of the Journal.
With the Exchange back-end it's a powerful information tool -- one that
I'm
not inclined to take away from my users just so I can try and teach them
Pegasus.
Aloha,
-Ben-
Ben M. Schorr, MVP-Outlook, CNA, MCPx3
Director of Information Services
Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
http://www.hawaiilawyer.com
-Original Message-
From: Kevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 5:55 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Ban Outlook
I'm wondering why everyone is so resistant to the notion of
using a different email client. I administer a network with
only 500 workstations and I still have my hands full
maintaining patches for Win2k, Outlook2k, etc Considering
the fact that very little of Outlook's functionality is used
on a day-to day basis by the average user, what is the
downside? .+--x m ,)ç¥r(亷 \æªbá½!ä ¶ 0 à§zÇ顱r马:.Ë
mé[hy潬\z[,æ )räZ Zvhå§+-iÙ¢2èG(
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ëi¢Ëb@Bm§ÿðà 0w ¢oëzÊ.Ç¿{!}ª¡¶`+r¯zÈm¶ÿÃ
,Ã)är¿²+^±æ«r ìyªÜ
«)N§²æìr¸zf¢Ú%y«Þ{!jx Ë0Êy ¢a1r§ââ²Ö)åËZvh§³ §Ê
RE: Network Error During Host Resolution
Sounds like a DNS problem. Check that your DNS is configured correctly on the exchange server... -Original Message- From: Adil Azad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, 17 November 2001 4:06 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Network Error During Host Resolution Hello! In my network running Exchange server 5.5 SP4 , WINNT4 SP6.Following errors are occured in my network.All e-mails are stored in IMS queue. *Network Error During Host Resolution. *Host Unreachable. Please reply soon . Regards Adil __ Do You Yahoo!? Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Configuring Exchange 2000 routing...
Jeff, 1. All looks OK. 2. I don't think so. 3. Be careful with the firewall. When I did a similar process the firewall / mail relay was set to only accept outbound mail from the Exch 5.5 server. I had that changed to accept mail from both Exch 5.5 and E2k boxes. Inbound mail defaults to the E2K box but if it is down will forward to the Exch 5.5 IMC. All went perfectly and is still working 100%. Next stage will be to decomission the Exch 5.5 server(s)... Good luck. MP -Original Message- From: Edgington, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 1 November 2001 6:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Configuring Exchange 2000 routing... First, I apologize if this is a basic question, I have looked at the FAQs and found some on this in the MS docs from their website... I guess I'm just looking for confirmation that I'm on the right track or a warning that I'm doing something stupid (and why)... I'm reading Tony Redmond's book (again) right now and don't plan on doing any of this until I'm finished (again) but am trying to work through my scenario as I read... that being said, here goes... Currently our site has the following machines mail01 (E5.5SP4) - bridgehead (has connectors to the other sites and an IMC) - the IMC points only to a sendmail machine called mrelay mail02 / mail03 (E5.5SP4) - mailbox servers. msxproto2 - E2Ksp2 machine with SRS installed (currently port 25 is open in the firewall for this machine) mail1 / mail2 - (E2Ksp2) machines (currently port 25 is open in the firewall for them) (naming these mail1 and mail2 was not my idea) As we move to E2K, I need to test the new SMTP connectoras follows: 1. Configure and SMTP connector for the routing group with a cost greater than the cost of the IMC on mail01 and points to mrelay (the unix sendmail machine)... - this would effectively do nothing as the cost of the SMTP connector is higher than the cost of the IMC just puts it in place. 2. Leaving port 25 open for the E2K machines, increase the cost of the IMC on mail01 and decrease the cost on the SMTP connector this would effectively re-route the internet mail through the new SMTP connector for ALL servers (E5.5 and E2K)... but leaves mail internal to the organization routing through mail01 to the other sites via a site connector. 3. If internet mail flows correctly through this, then I will have the network guys block port 25 at the firewall for the Exchange machines... this leaves the only in/outbound point being mrelay. What concerns me here is if there is any replication between the exchange routing groups (at other locations) that will be affected by shutting off direct access to the machines via port 25 I haven't found anything (yet) that says this would be detrimental, but want to make sure. Eventually the E5.5 machines go away (mail01 being the last) at which point ALL mail outside my routing group would pass through the SMTP connector right?? Additionally we will be testing TLS between the sendmail box (mrelay) and Exchange 2000, but that will come after I know I have items 1-3 done. So I guess my questions in a nutshell are as follows: 1. Does the above look correct? 2. Am I missing or misunderstanding anything here? 3. Will blocking port 25 for the exchange servers at the firewall (they will still be able to talk to each other via 25 within the Rolla routing group) cause any adverse affects? thanks for any help/insight you can provide me and I apologize for the length of the e-mail. jeff e. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Event ID 1221 --- Is this normal?
It's OK. You don't have to do a thing. No fix required. -Original Message- From: Van Huissteden, Adriaan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 31 October 2001 8:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Event ID 1221 --- Is this normal? Is this ok? EVENT ID: 1221 Source MSEchangeS Public TypeInformation CategoryGeneral The database has 0 megabytes of free space after online defragmentation has terminated. Is this OK? What should I do to fix it? Thanks all! Adriaan Van Huissteden Network Administrator Connect Credit Union Phone: (03) 6233 0660 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Encryption
Hi all, This may be a dumb question, so I apologise in advance... If we get each executive a Verisign $15 digital ID... does it apply to internal mail as well as external mail? Without time and resources to test all of this I can only presume that internal mail would be treated (signed and encrypted) in the same fashion as external mail... Also, Can anyone confirm that The recipient will still need to go to the Verisign website and download the public key or have the sender forward the public key... for encrypted messages. For digitally signed messages that are not encrypted... then this does not apply and the recipient can simply read the message and feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that the contents are 100% legit. Thanks. MP -Original Message- From: Jon Lucas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2001 1:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Encryption Count me in. I can offer quite a bit of insight into the VeriSign product and would love to participate. The time has come to bring some sense to this issue. Let's start the discussion off-line. Who wants to take the lead? Who will participate? Mark, one quick thought... If you want a quick way to get your execs to begin using digital IDs, since they are are probably not many in number, you can easily enroll for a individual IDs at http://www.verisign.com/products/class1/index.html for $14.95 each. Once they have the certs, configure their Outlook clients to use the certs in Tools, Options, Security. Make sure to configure the IMC with the option Clients support S/MIME option or you will not be able to sign email. This way you can get them to try out the technology for relatiely little dollars. If their goal is to be able to encrypt mail between themselves, thus preventing you, and other admins etc. from reading it, this may be all you need to do. If you want, you can go one step further and use a utility certstuff.exe to upload the certificate to the GAL. This is not necessary but if you have a small group of people and they would rather use the GAL instead of individual contacts for each other, you can make it work with certstuff.exe. I'm still trying to figure out where to obtain certstuff.exe. It's been a while and I can't remember how MS released it. Anyway, by doing the above, you have basically done on a small scale, what GoSecure for Exchange will do in a large scale, with managed capacity. Why use a CA? Their certs chain up to a key that was already placed in your registry. In fact just about everyone in the world with very few exceptions will have this root. VeriSign as well as other CAs are in the MS Root Certificate program. This means that when you sign a message with your digital ID, and send it to someone, the certificate will be presented without prompting the person on the receiving end as to whether or not they wish to trust the certificate. It's an ease of use issue. Also, the same infrastructure that provides the s/mime certs can be part of an overall solution that provides certificates for ssl and ipsec for your websites and router/firewall/host encryption. Also, you can do all the issuance and management using the CAs infrastructure. You don't have to build anything. Signing the message not only provides a means to link it to a verified identity, it also adds a checksum to ensure that the contents were not altered. This capability works regardless of whether or not the person on the other end has an ID. Encryption will only work if the other party, like you, has a digital ID, or key, and you have exchange the public portion of the key. I can provide you some screen shots of what this looks like in Outlook if you wish. -Jon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve Rollings Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 5:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Encryption Mark, Jon raises the critical issues. It would be neat if we had a standard. Your CEO needs to be aware of these issues (not simply loss of data), prior to implementing any policy or software solution. Agreed, why don't we take this offline. Can we set up a small forum to discuss the various alternatives? Regards, Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Peoples Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 01:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Encryption I have raised the potential loss of data issue - For both file and e-mail encryption. This is one of our biggest concerns. By their very nature... Exec's seem to lose / misplace / delete information and get themselves into many, many interesting and mind boggling scenarios. Adding another option for them to cause problems makes me very uneasy and cautious indeed
RE: Encryption
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Peoples Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 4:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Encryption Hi, I have checked the FAQ and have not found any suggestions... so I will put it to the experts. Does anyone have a preferred product or solution for e-mail encryption? Management here are looking at installing PGP and are also looking at a Verisign product. Does anyone have any good / bad experience with either of these products or any others? Previously I have had a few bad experiences with PGP software so I may be a bitbiased against it - hence I am looking to see what the general consensus is... Thanks in advance, MP _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Encryption
I have raised the potential loss of data issue - For both file and e-mail encryption. This is one of our biggest concerns. By their very nature... Exec's seem to lose / misplace / delete information and get themselves into many, many interesting and mind boggling scenarios. Adding another option for them to cause problems makes me very uneasy and cautious indeed. The potential penetration of viruses issue is a good one... that will be raised at the next ooportunity I have to do so. Ed, I doubt the CEO is aware of the fact that he must co-ordinate with his recipients. This may be a turning point for the notion. Given the company is moving into a really busy period... having to co-ordinate with recipients increases the size of the 'project' significantly. Thanks and Peace to all. MP -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2001 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Encryption Is your CEO aware that the person with whom he is corresponding must also use the same encryption tool he uses? That is, that such a desire requires coordination with all of his correspondents? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation (soon to be HP) All your base are belong to us. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Peoples Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 4:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Encryption Many, many Good points. Allow me to elaborate... CEO of company has ants in the pants about encryption all of a sudden. He wants his mail and the mail of the top exec's to be encrypted for both internal and external mail. As most CEO's do, He wants it yesterday but the people that need to know find out today. He also wants the ability to encrypt files. I will treat this as a side issue and not in the scope of this discussion because this has wider implications that need to be discussed internally before a solution can be sought. In fact the whole damn topic needs to be discussed off line... but I'll take care of that. I wholly with you agree about the security policy - that should come first and set the stage for the implementation. I guess what I am asking is, for e-mail encryption (that is my primary concern at this stage) is it better for client based encryption via PGP addin to Outlook (or digital ID), or server based encryption? I see Mail Essentials from www.GFI.com have a server based solution. If we can, we would like to avoid having a Key Mgmt server... but if we need to get one then I am happy to take that course of action too. Our desktop support group have managed to crash 2 of 3 machines while testing Outlook PGP plugin. we are not looking too favourably on that solution at the moment. Verisign digital ID's for the exec's seems to be the way to go at the moment... If it helps, we are running Win2k and E2k server. Mail clients are running either Win2k Professional or NT4 and OL 2000. Thanks for your assistance so far... VERY VERY helpful and encouraging! MP -Original Message- From: Jon Lucas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2001 2:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Encryption Well, since it appears this thread has taken a turn for the obscure, I will respond to your original post. I usually just listen to this list, but this is actually something of which I have some level of knowledge. I won't discuss my affiliation with VeriSign except to say that I do not work for them. It is my opinion that VeriSign has the best solution for implementing a managed PKI solution for Exchange. We can discuss that in subsequent emails since I am now getting ahead of the encryption discussion. Where any discussion of PKI starts is with clearly defined organizational objectives. You simply do not want to try to deploy PKI as your solution. That is not a clearly defined objective. You need to identify what it is that you are interested in securing; you external communications with partners, your internal communications between employees and HR, your network communication, authentication, building access etc. Your organization needs to have a security policy. This involves your entire enterprise, not just your Exchange organization. It may sound like a rant, but by implementing a method of encryption, you can potentially undermine other objectives such as protecting your company from viruses. For example, you may decide to implement a solution that gives every employee a digital ID and ensures that it gets inserted into the Exchange GAL or Active Directory. This enables any employee to simply sign and/or encrypt email to others in the directory. You may also as part of your security policy, require employees to sign all
Encryption
Hi, I have checked the FAQ and have not found any suggestions... so I will put it to the experts. Does anyone have a preferred product or solution for e-mail encryption? Management here are looking at installing PGP and are also looking at a Verisign product. Does anyone have any good / bad experience with either of these products or any others? Previously I have had a few bad experiences with PGP software so I may be a bitbiased against it - hence I am looking to see what the general consensus is... Thanks in advance, MP _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Urgent - win2K E2K
I hope someone can offer some advice... I am running Win2k and Exchange 2k / Ex 5.5 mixed environment. I have one user who was having all sorts of trouble with forms and accepting meetings and errors coming up with reminders to meetings. After exhausting all other avenues of trying to resolve the problem I deleted and re-created the mailbox. This seemed to be OK, until this morning when the user tried to send a message and received the follwoing error: Cannot create the e-mail message because a location to send and receive messages could not be found. To add a location click tools However, the delivery location is set to be the mailbox. I have also noticed in Exchange system manager that user has 2 mailboxes still listed on the server, even though I have deleted one of them through ADUC. The 'active' mailbox produces the above error. I have mailbox retention time set to 30 days. Any thoughts? Thanks MP _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GAL template change
Hi, On one server I am running win2k and Exchange 5.5.One another server I am running Win2K and Exchange 2K. Yes, I am in the middle of a migration from 5.5 to 2K... I have been asked to change the GAL user details template to include a custom attribute. Doing the actual form changes I am quite OK with... but my question is - which template do I make the change to and on which server? Do I need to change templates on all Exchange servers? the Exchange 5.5 server was the first server in the site... and I have tried making the changes there. I have also restarted the Exchange 5.5 services but the changes do not appear in the GAL. Exchange 2000 - I have made a simple change (reduce size of one field) for testing purposes and it does not appear to change the GAL. I realise I may need to restart the Win2k services as well... but does any one know which particular service requires the restart for the changes to be effected? Unfortunately I don't have a test environment substantial enough to simulate this (yet). I have tested making the changes in 5.5 and E2K separately... both successfully. The mixed environment has complicated things... Any help would be appreciated. MP _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Attaching Files as Shortcuts
I had this problem where I used to work... The users were about as dumb as a post when it came to outlook and used it store anything they could in their mailbox. If there were 10 of them in a group all with access to the same file server - they would still manage to e-mail the document to each other etc. It was a major behavioural problem. Besides some training that was compulsory and backed by management, The only way we could force people to use shortcuts for internal doucments was to restrict their mailbox size to say 20 megs. Even still we had 1 Exec send out a 20 meg attachment to the other execs... boy did that exec look the fool! *NOTE* We only ever restricted sending ability, Prohibiting receive seems a bit silly to me... Single instance works great in this scenario ... but one attachment registers once for size in the information store, but also registers in each persons mailbox, so they all needed to learn to manage their inbox and sent items... esp what they were attaching and sending to other staff: What takes less space in your mailbox? A 1K shortcut or a 1 meg document? In the end, it forced people who received documents to store them on the file servers... so they (and their team) could work on them. HTH MP -Original Message- From: Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 28 August 2001 1:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Attaching Files as Shortcuts Some files are being modified and some are not being modified. I am concerned about the whole issue, having multiple copies wasting disk space as well as confusing people as to which document is which. Right now we have some users who do attach files as shortchuts already. I simply wanted to force the rest of the users to do the same by changing the default. Just out of curiosity, what would be a better purpose for the use of this functionality? In my opinion this is exactly the solution for what I am dealing with here. And yes I know that training the users is the way to go, however I know from experience here that it would open a whole new can of worms. And I agree with your troubles of people using their mailbox to store files. This would help with that greatly by letting them store shortcuts rather than actual files. ...and keep in mind that the multiple copies issue may not be as severe as it seems, at first blush. You do have SIS, after all, so as long as they're not changing it and sticking it back in the store, it's somewhat mitigated. Having said that, one of the banes of my existence is people who think their mailbox is a file repository. Now, where did I leave that copy of Elf Bowling from Christmas 1999...? -Original Message- From: Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Monday, August 27, 2001 8:32 AM Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List Conversation: Attaching Files as Shortcuts Subject: RE: Attaching Files as Shortcuts Hi Byron,=20 Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the help. Mike Hey Mike, =20 I actually think you pose a very valid question and think this functionality would be useful for users (and is not a behavioral issue - though there are many out there :)). However, Exchange/Outlook doesn't offer this out_of_the_box so like someone mentioned earlier you should check into writing or hiring someone to write some code for you or look into third-party tools. Fundamentally, you're wanting a automated tool for the File: command. I'm sure there are resources on the slipstick site or in Exchange/Outlook mag archives that may help you out. Also check www.cdolive.com I looked at this years back and got sick of fooling with the forms in Outlook. It's just not that interesting to me. I also looked at a product called keyflow at one time. =20 Really what you're looking for is single storage for your data and that makes sense. You may find that merging all the data into a workflow or document/knowledge management system provides you other interface benefits that just haven't come to mind yet.=20 =20 Good luck. Byron =20 =20 =20 -Original Message- From: Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 2:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Attaching Files as Shortcuts =20 =20 It's not a simple question. Yes, there's probably a registry key for it, but I wouldn't recomend it. =20 Why would you not reccomend it? 99% of the files flyig back and forth are all sent to local addresses who all have access to the same servers. Right now we are creating multiple copies of files already stored on a central server. I would think this would be the reason for the shortcut functionality? =20 if you want a workflow application, purchase or create one. Exchange don't do that so good. =20 I am not
