I'm saving it for less headaches in the future.
-Original Message-
From: Drewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:14 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
What are you saving that 99% processor and 20% RAM for, exactly?
So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's
best to flame everyone else that can.
If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was
making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the
database and the least amount of
And another comment Mr. Ely.
Let's keep this in mind next time you decide to flame me or someone else on
the list.
I'm simply giving my opinion. Acceptance is optional. I'm giving my
opinion of a server spec for exchange server that in my opinion has giving
me the best level of
I guess it depends on your situation. If policy dictates that Exchange
Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want to
spec the system appropriately.
Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and
requires good salesmanship and good political
I agree. The 5-8 years was a little far-fetched. However, I was simply
trying to make a point. My goal is to get the most I can now. 3 years
from now I'll do it again.
And another point
You guys are stuck on the mentality that I might be overpaying for
something.
I would like you to
I was merely referring to my experience. I don't want to give anyone the
wrong impression. I have only been in the business 10 years. Much less
than some of you on this list. However, during this time I've come to the
conclusion that more is always better.
-Original Message-
From:
Not really. He states his opinion by flaming others opinions. Just seems
rude to me but maybe that's just the way he is...
-Original Message-
From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:38 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory
Then my point is taken.
-Original Message-
From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:34 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Please, most of us here wrote the book on how to sell to management...
D
-Original
Maybe so...
And your opinion is different, to say the least.
All that really matters is that I'm happy with my setup and your happy with
yours. Now the person whom originally posted the question has the
opportunity to decide whether to implement your solution or mine.
I am happy with my
Is it just me or does it seem odd that you would get so upset about the
hardware I choose to implement on my network? I'm not purchasing hardware
and implementing it on your network.
Although you probably wished I wereThen maybe you would have some decent
servers.
-Original
Hey now. A non-profit organization that saves lives
Everything is critical in the blood business. Ever heard of Hippa?
-Original Message-
From: Tom.Gray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:44 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory
Unless Don and Dr. Dogg are the same person I do not see your relevance.
I made a definitive statement (accusation). Which, in hindsight, was
inappropriate. Sometimes I can be too direct. I officially apologize to
Dr. Dogg for that inappropriate statement.
-Original Message-
From:
Hmm. Well I guess the difference is I don't have to convince my wife to
allow me to purchase something I just purchase it and let her know.
As for management, I guess it comes down to track record. If you have a
good track record with upper management and users it because easier every
year to
Yes. I agree with the first paragraph. That's why I chose to apologize.
However, make correct decisions can be based on your specific environment.
Given the same problem we might all solve it a little differently. Some
problems only have one answer. However, when it comes to hardware
Nope. Disagree. This problem could have been avoided with proper
implementation of hardware. In my opinion.
My solution is not to throw hardware at a problem. My solution is to
implement a proper hardware solution in the beginning! I was not trying to
solve the person's problem. I
Exactly. You make a recommendation based on an appropriate solution to
handle present needs in addition to future needs. Basing your buying
decisions on the hope that prices would go down is like purchasing a small
cap stock that trades on the ANDS. You have no idea what the prices of
hardware
Before you guys rip me a new one I meant to say NASD not ANDS! Sorry
for the typo.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:31 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Exactly. You make
Man. Now I'm really going to get it. I meant NASDAQ not NASD...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Before you guys rip me a new one I
I hear ya.
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:46 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Don't worry. We all dozed off a long time ago.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would like to comment on this but I'm going to pass.
-Original Message-
From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 4:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: What would you buy?
Not nessicarily brand, cause I'm stuck with IBM.
Exchange 2000 server
Did you restart the IMC service?
and
Is the system attempting to send the mail multihomed or have more than one
ip address bound?
Brian Murphy, MCSE, CCNA, CCA
Director of Network Services
Privacy Officer
Carter Bloodcare (www.carterbloodcare.org)
817.412.5406
-Original Message-
Bindview
-Original Message-
From: Derrick Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Seeking Exchange 5.5 Monitoring/Auditing Tools
Can anyone recommend any tools that meeting the following requirements:
-
Exmerge
-Original Message-
From: Garrett Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 6:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Message search utility
Using exmerge with 5.5 allows someone to copy messages based only on
message attachment or subject line logic.
I'm not real familiar with ISA but there is probably a configuration setting
that enables Web Publishing. This might be turned off by default?
-Original Message-
From: Filipe Joel de Almeida [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 5:22 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Under Tools - Services - The Exchange Server service is not setup properly
or has not been added.
-Original Message-
From: Libi Maniace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 9:10 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Users Mailbox
I have a user who gets an error
400 Mailboxes and 1 gig of Ram does not sound right. Your primary problem
is hardware.
This is my minimum recommendation for your hardware requirements.
Dual Pentium III 550 +
Separate Raid Controller running in Raid 5 config. (2 partitions logical)
2 Gig physical memory.
3 Gig Page File on
No you don't.
-Original Message-
From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:19 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
I have 4000 users running off of less then a Gig or ram. And almost a
gig Page file. How
Typically if you have a 4 gig priv.edb your Memory Utilization is going to
be around 800-900 Meg. Obviously this number would fluctuate based on the
numbers of users connected to the system. The amount of mail moving back
and forth through the database on 4000 users there is no way your running
Maybe as a SMTP relay only. No Exchange Boxes.
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:31 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Wanna bet?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Excuse me for doubting but I can only base my assumptions on real world
experience. I know for a fact that a typical Exchange Box with Mailboxes
providing Mapi based services with a 4 gig priv will run around 800 meg ram
utilization. With two processors and a raid controller on this box your
Hmm. Do you have your mailboxes restricted to 1 Meg each.
-Original Message-
From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:38 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
4079 recipients in the, opps just got 2 more, 4081
Hmm. My experience has been that the mem utilization is typically 25-30% of
the priv size. And this does not account for the imc and other components
like av software. Your memory optimization skills must be much more
advanced than my own Care to share the secret?
Brian Murphy, MCSE,
Good eye Mark.. I missed the incomplete subnet mask. :(
-Original Message-
From: Ludwig, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:44 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Relay Restrictions
Thanks to all that replied. This looks like the fix as it is
Sybari Antigen for Exchange (www.sybari.com) is the best A/V Solution for
your Exchange Server.
-Original Message-
From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:17 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: NAV for Exchange 5.5
Hi Folks,
I just found out we
When did this problem start occuring?
How long has the system been in production?
Are you running any A/V software on the system?
Are the recipients that strip the attachments the same everytime versus
the one's that do not strip the attachments?
-Original Message-
From: Jeff
What is a Compaq?
-Original Message-
From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:43 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: anyone know
hold on let me check
-Original Message-
From: Monteleone-Haught Matt - Millville
[mailto:[EMAIL
Run Sybari on the Exchange Server and Sophos Antivirus on the client side.
Sophos is the fastest I've seen with new updates. Probably because they are
based in Europe.
-Original Message-
From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:43 AM
To: Exchange
The reason you can no longer do this is because you have not set your static
RPC ports for the exchange server. This must have been done on the older
version and now that you have upgraded you will have to re-do it.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I agree with this. This is a bad idea to open up this communication via the
internet. A better solution would be to implement a VPN solution using PPTP
directly to the server or another RAS Server. I'm not aware of any problems
running RAS on the Exchange box but I suppose it would depend on
And when you say wide open can you explain how you accomplished this. All
traffic is dissallowed by default on the PIX. Unless you have ACL with
allow any any somewhere in there then your PIX is still closed. Also, is
this a 3 port PIX or 2. What version of IOS are your running?
I guess I'm confused. After re-reading the original post I'm not sure what
was actually upgraded. I see Exch 5.5 then IE 4.01. Did you upgrade
Internet Explorer Browser?
-Original Message-
From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 1:30 PM
To: Exchange
Either way... Double check the Registry settings for the RPC ports and let
us know. Upgrading Internet Explorer is always an interesting experience.
By the way...Why did you upgrade the browser on the Exchange Server. Are
you accessing the internet from the Exchange Server for some reason. You
There's you answer. I think the upgrade to 5.5 SP4 would have reset the
static RPC ports defined previously. You can set this back...but, I would
not recommend doing so.
Your best bet is to implement a VPN solution if users wish to access the
Exchange Server via the Internet using a Mapi
I suppose. If you accessing OWA from the Exchange Server I guess this would
be relevant.
-Original Message-
From: Drewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 1:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Client Access
Well, for OWA to work with the current
What's Disaster Recovery planning?
-Original Message-
From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 1:46 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Disaster recovery planning for the new year.
I did lot's of testing and DR's for clients this year... I plan on
Me either.
-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 1:45 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Disaster recovery planning for the new year.
May 31st isn't a good day for me...
-Original Message-
From: Chris
By then it could be too late :(
-Original Message-
From: Ed Premus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 2:40 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Client Connectivity
Thanks for your help! I apologize again for the multiples. I'm going to
leave it as it is and
This is an improper subnet for only 2 networks. Your using a class B
network and 6 bits from the third octet (252). This would yield 62 subnets
with 1022 hosts per subnet and a range of 4. (Check my math everyone).
Why not just close off all the bits for each subnet. Example:
172.22.64.0
SP Upgrades or Exchange upgrades. I believe he stated that he upgraded to
Exch 5.5 then SP4. The Exchange upgrade would have reset the RPC
portsI think. Not to mention, anytime you upgrade IE on a server be
prepared for something to happen you did not plan on.
-Original Message-
This is an improper subnet for only 2 networks. Your using a class B
network and 6 bits from the third octet (252). This would yield 62 subnets
with 1022 hosts per subnet and a range of 4. (Check my math everyone).
Why not just close off all the bits for each subnet. Example:
172.22.64.0
Maybe so.. But what if you upgrade from 5.0 to 5.5 SP4? Which...by the way,
is what seems to be the case here but that part was left out.
-Original Message-
From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 3:05 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Client
This is why I ask
Routers do not forward Netbios so if you depending on this for connectivity
this is a problem. You stated that TCP/IP is working but not Netbios. How
did you determine this?
If you modify the lmhosts file on the local machine with the domain
information does that make a
I assumed. I could be wrong but from the information given and the problem
he was experiencing I assumed this was the case. He stated:
Sorry for not being clear,
upgraded to 5.5 sp4
patched IIS
updated ie to 5.5 sp2 and security patches
I assumed upgraded to 5.5 sp4 meant he was
YEs. I noticed that and had left a message for them to tell me the 7
viruses that were detected but I have not heard back yet.Everyone busy
doing something else I guess (except me)
-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December
Upgrade to 6.0 IOS
-Original Message-
From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 9:07 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Help please
I can't recall some great examples off hand, but I remember a time where the
PIX would to funny things to the network
After re-reading the problem I have to agree. I should have read the
entire message. I missed the part about being able to receive internal smtp
mail. This will only work if the users are located on the GC.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday,
That doesnt make any sense. Download the file to a server running tftp.
Tftp the image to your router?
-Original Message-
From: Ronald Mazzotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 9:13 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Help please
Can't upgrade to 6.0.
What version are you on now?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 9:21 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Help please
That doesnt make any sense. Download the file to a server running tftp.
Tftp the image to your
Logging is fairly straight forward. Telnet to device and add the following
lines
logging on
logging timestamp
logging trap errors
logging history errors
logging facility 7
logging host inside (internal_ip)
Your logging host inside needs to be running compliant software.
Complaint defined
Are you using an host headers on your IIS Server?
-Original Message-
From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 10:08 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Help please
Is the 63.x.x.x address the client address or what? What shows up in the
logs when
I'm not sure why your using host headers but you need to do one of two
things:
1. First, make sure that your IP address is set to all unassigned
2. Next, remove the host headersor
3. or add the host header matching your outside alias (dns).
-Original Message-
From: Don Ely
Oh.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Szabo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 10:38 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Help please
Guys,
I don't think this is a routing problem. I can access the default web page
on tahoe.sss-cpa.com w/o any problem. This
I'm not sure I see the relevance of forwarding the ip packets to the proxy
then to the internal server. Your not accomplishing anything different then
directly forwarding the port 80 packets to your internal owa server. I only
say this because your behind the PIX firewall. I could understand
Also... When you upgrade to 6.0 make sure you add the following lines:
ip audit info action alarm
ip audit attack action alarm
no snmp-server location
no snmp-server contact
snmp-server community public
no snmp-server enable traps
floodguard enable
Thx.
Murphy
-Original Message-
From:
Yes. Using the static commands. I would not use conduit commands in 6.0
IOS. Use a static command like I described below. This way you can use 1
IP address to redirect different ports to different servers. For example:
Using one IP you can setup several different redirects
static
Conduit commands are not recommended or supported in 6.0 and above.
-Original Message-
From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 11:28 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Help please
The tcp and www statement should be in a conduit permit
Upgrade to 6.0 first.
-Original Message-
From: Ronald Mazzotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 11:32 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Help please
Had to install kiwi enterprise syslog. Did everythin stated but no info
is logged to the syslog server
One more thing. Before you upgrade to 6.0 make sure you have a copy of your
original config. Hopefully you have something like Reflections (vs M$
telnet).
Next type:
show config (enable mode)
Copy and paste the config to a text file for future reference. Some of the
command sets are obsolete
You need to get additional IP addresses. You need one IP bound to the
external interface as your PAT Address only. You need additional IP's for
services with duplicate ports running on different servers. Or, you can do
something sneaky like setup your owa site on a different http port like 100
Yeah. You just need to bind your owa server to port 90 or 100 and set your
static command to route port 90 or 100 to the internal IP address
192.168.0.0. The proxy server redirect does not add any additional security
to your existing config and just adds an additional hop.
-Original
Keep the fixups and disable esmtp on the exchange server. There is a
knowldedge base article on this. Use www.google.com to search for it. I
would not use M$ search site.
-Original Message-
From: Ronald Mazzotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 1:41 PM
To:
This seems like a dumb question (being that I should know the answer) but
here goes.
I have a system in which I have the SMTP Server setup. IIS 5.0. W2k SP2
and so forth.
The system is behind a firewall in a dmz config situation. I have the SMTP
component set to route using DNS for the
Just partial to google. Try and see.
-Original Message-
From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 2:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Help please
And I would not use the M$ indicator... :P
As to why you wouldn't search the MS Site, what are
Yes. I've been using the internal IP only. No host name for the forward
to:
-Original Message-
From: Byron Kennedy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 2:52 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: IIS SMTP Server (IIS5)
on the dmz smtp server set the remote
You cannot ping through a pix. You would have to add a ICMP any any to your
ACL.
-Original Message-
From: Ronald Mazzotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 3:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Help please
Well the solution I created is nto going to
Yeah. I specifically stated not to map to your proxy first. Send straight
to the 192.168.x.x of the OWA Box.
ALso, you need to modify a few things on this box.
This box should have one nic. I'm assuming the pix is connected to your
lan. The OWA box needs to point to the pix as it's default
It sounds like your PIX is configured wrong. Your proxy is configured wrong
for this config too. The center point in this equation should be your PIX.
It does not sound like your using the DMZ so use the following strategy.
Your Proxy is currently multihomed. Disable the external interface
That's a problem. Read previous mail.
-Original Message-
From: Ronald Mazzotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 3:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Help please
I think we are missing something. There is no possible way to not go
through proxy.
Your making this harder then it needs to be.
The PIX is your Firewall...not the proxy. Proxy is basically being used to
Authenticate Internet Access to internal users.
Your Proxy, Exchange Server, and OWA server, etc should be pointing
directly to your PIX Firewall. The PIX Firewall
How did you validate this problem. Is there a knowledge base article
somewhere that describes this issue. Just wondering if this is a known
issue or not?
-Original Message-
From: Grewal, Raj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 11:49 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Log the SMTP Interface Events?
-Original Message-
From: roger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 2:12 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Urgent Help Needed smtp causing srv to slow right down
I cant see it being the NIC as when i disable SMTP all becomes
Also, this sounds like a more serious problem being that users cannot access
the internet and/or send/receive mail. Maybe a bad network card. Can you
ping your default gateway? Can you ping an outside internet address?
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL
Upgrade to version 6.0 IOS. Use the Static Port commands to redirect users
to the internal OWA site instead of your Proxy Server first. This works
even if your using a DMZ card. Also, can you clarify redirect my MX record
exchange server address to the server?
Also...
How many valid static
Yes. Dunno about Exc 2k but you can enable the option that states Allow
mail from these recipients only!
-Original Message-
From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 3:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Allowing internal SMTP but not
As stated earlier...validate your MX record and dns records.
Install version 6.0 of the PIX IOS.
Setup a static route like this:
static (inside,outside) tcp (external_ip) www (internal_ip) www netmask
255.255.255.255
With a corresponding Access-list entry:
access-list 100 permit tcp any host
Hmm. Well there is an option on each mailbox that you can setup the mailbox
so that they only receive mail from internal users. I thought this was what
you were requesting.
-Original Message-
From: Walden H. Leverich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 4:59 PM
To:
Ah. Now I'm with ya. My bad.
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 3:15 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Does anyone know...
hmmm. Well maybe its late in the day or maybe its the anticipation of my
pending Christmas
I'm not sure that Exchange supports your definition of newsgroup. If I
remember correctly you can do some tricky stuff using Public Folders but
don't remember...I believe that Ed Crowley (Did I spell it right? grin)
has written some stuff about this?
-Original Message-
From: Arnold,
How old is the hardware? What are the specs?
-Original Message-
From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:02 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: MSExchangeMTA event errors
i looked there this morning hoping to shed some light to no avail.
This still sounds like a domain issue. Is the standalone box running AD?
-Original Message-
From: Allan Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:24 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA 5.5sp4 on IIS5/Win2k SP2
Have you installed the Ex. SP4 on
Crashing? What type of hardware? Specs?
-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 2:38 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Installing E5.5 on W2K box
Anything more you can shareWhat do you mean exploding? Error
Is the box a member of an NT Domain?
-Original Message-
From: DeGourney, Wayne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 2:41 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Installing E5.5 on W2K box
Receive a unknown has generated an error, please restart your
Let's examine a few things:
1. You stated that the server is a standalone system. However, is it a
member of the NT Domain.
2. Under IIS properties (Directory Security) do you have Anonymous access
checked and Basic Auth. Under Basic Auth do you have the domain preset.
(Side note) If you do
I think this is pretty cut-and-dry like I explained earlier.
Under the Connections tab of your Exchange Administrator utility you will
see Internet Mail Service... Or at least you should if you have been
sending and receiving Internet Email.
Notice the settings on this connector and write them
Ok.
How about this. I'm guessing this is not your Exchange Server.
What are the properties of the following reg key:
HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\MSExchangeWeb\Parameters
The following three keys are of interest:
Enterprise - Must match that of your Exchange Server
Site - Ditto
This would not have been what I guessed. This tells me that you have a
smarthost somewhere on the other side of a firewall and/or someone is
allowing you to relay off their system.
This complicates the issue. Is your Proxy Server multihomed or does it
simply provide Authentification services
Generally if your Proxy Server is multihomed and setup to send and recieve
mail then this would be set to Use DNS. Unless you have another smarthost
out their somewhere. I'd be curious as to whether your proxy is directly
connected or behind another device.
Easy way to check this is get a cmd
It sounds like your best bet is to retain Exchange on both systems. Keep
the settings the same on your Proxy Server Exchange Internet Mail connector.
Add an additional Internet Mail Connector on the 2nd Exchange Server to
forward outgoing SMTP to the 1st exchange server.
I believe this will
Only one domain right? No resource domains or anything?
-Original Message-
From: Wynkoop, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 2:43 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA 5.5sp4 on IIS5/Win2k SP2
We have 3 BDC's I'll reboot them later tonight and
I disagree. You cannot create the IMS on the new machine and not have it
route thru the old server. The old server is the only EXIT point out of
the network being that it is a multihomed proxy server. You can't stick the
IMC on the internal server and expect it to know how to send and receive
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
