I'm not sure about the x.400 spec, but if you are upgrading from 5.5 to 2000
then you are correct. Since 2000 requires Active Directory, AD follows the
standard BIND DNS naming conventions. It only allows letters, numbers or a
hyphen. An underscore is allowed in a NetBIOS naming convention, but
Most time in email transactions is recorded as UTC (AKA Greenwich Mean Time)
+/- the timezone offset in hours.
In other words, the time stamp on this message should read something like
11:24 -4:00
I'd guess you're West Coast USA, at which point that would be correct.
During non-Daylight savings t
UTC Coordinated Universal Time (zulu or Greenwich Mean Time, GMT)
William
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Edgington,
Jeff
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 7:32 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
While looking at one of the mail headers fo
LOL...
I may have to call PSS. I appreciate the effort.
Thanks,
Josh
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 7:40 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
Now we have the picture...
You either need
t, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:07 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: X.400 issues
>
>
> This is where things get really complicated.
>
> These 2 servers are not in the same ORG as all the other
> servers. They
: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:35 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
G-d do you need a consulting engagement! I know someone in San Diego who
could spend a couple days with you on this if you really need the help.
Anyway, let me see if I can sort this out:
EC <-x400-> Irvine (
Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:36 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: X.400 issues
>
>
> Not really an option.
>
> The scenario is this:
> The one remote server is in San Diego that used to be
>
What does usage on task manager look like when the server's MTA gets backed
up. Maybe it's the box itself.
- Original Message -
From: "Bennett, Joshua" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November
- Original Message -
From: "Bennett, Joshua" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:36 PM
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
> Not really an option.
>
> The scenario is this:
> The one r
[mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:36 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
What is it about your routing table that is causing the looping messages? Is
it possible for you to remove redundant routes, even just one or two, to see
what happens
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:55 AM
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
> Yes, the queues back up for an hour or so then flush clean in a 2 minute
> span once the X.400 connection is successful. However, due to the
Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA
> -Original Message-
> From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:56 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: X.400 issues
>
>
> Yes, the queues back up for an hour or so th
Both way's
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc@;dc-resources.net]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 8:43 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: X.400 issues
On which MTA? The sending or receiving one?
- Original Message -
From: "Bennett, Joshu
@;inovis.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
IIRC, you're getting "exceeded the maximum number of associations" which
usually indicates that the total number of connections and associations,
which I believe is 9 associations and
, November 04, 2002 5:54 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
So, it continues to sound more like a bandwidth or network problem. Did we
ever determine what 'too long' of a delivery time meant?
> -Original Message-
> From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@
On which MTA? The sending or receiving one?
- Original Message -
From: "Bennett, Joshua" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 2:10 PM
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
> I've adjusted
t, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:11 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: X.400 issues
>
>
> I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has
> available and again,
> it did not correct the situation.
: Exchange Discussions
>
> I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has available and
> again,
> it did not correct the situation.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:47 PM
>
I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has available and again,
it did not correct the situation.
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:47 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA
> -Original Message-
> From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:24 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: X
I use "supposed to be" due to the issue at hand that is driving me insane.
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
Replace "supposed to be&qu
:jbennett@;cotelligent.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:27 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: X.400 issues
>
>
> These servers are all connected by WAN links and X.400 connectors are
> supposed to be more resilient to network interruptions.
>
Generally sounds like a bad one.
-Original Message-
From: Bennett, Joshua
To: Exchange Discussions
Sent: 11/4/2002 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I
received
a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack
These servers are all connected by WAN links and X.400 connectors are
supposed to be more resilient to network interruptions.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse@;hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: X.400 issues
tor
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse@;hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:36 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Re: X.400 issues
>
>
> I thought he said he had T1's ac
I thought he said he had T1's across his network though. If not then I agree
X400 much more efficient.
- Original Message -
From: "Roger Seielstad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 20
Hlabse [mailto:thlabse@;hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Re: X.400 issues
>
>
> Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site
> Connectors. Yes x400
> are more efficient just curious.
>
> - O
Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site Connectors. Yes x400
are more efficient just curious.
- Original Message -
From: "Darcy Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:06 AM
S
AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
How many X.400 connectors do you have defined on the central machine? (And
maybe on remote ones as well). If you have "too many": you will need to
increase the number of Control Blocks being used. Take a search through MS
KB for &quo
irrep connector, be prepared to rebuild any cross-site
distribution lists after you recreate the connectors (X400 and dirrep).
Darcy
-Original Message-
From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE:
Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service
The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity
(X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19
34](12)
Event ID 289: Source:
: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections
289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be opened
1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info
9202: low-level diagnostic
d anything of value?
-Original Message-
From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions@;entrysecurity.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
www.eventid.net
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:bounce-excha
www.eventid.net
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:bounce-exchange-224131@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett,
Joshua
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:05
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X
Discussions
Subject: Re: X.400 issues
Sounds like you need to put some type of monitor on your network to see if
there is anything abnormal with it particularly the links. Maybe if traffic
is that heavy maybe multiple X.400 connectors to the sites that are having
this issue?
- Original Message
oshua" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:59 PM
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
> I am actually using the IP address (probably should have stated that in
the
> original post, sorry)
>
> -Original Mess
I am actually using the IP address (probably should have stated that in the
original post, sorry)
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice@;pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
In the X.400 connector
In the X.400 connector definition are you identifying the remote server
by host name? If so, change it to IP address and see if the problem
goes away.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-Original Message-
F
r just produces the 289 event id
> only.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Josh
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff@;messageone.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: X.400 issues
>
&
When I had similar issues between the core Exchange servers in Houston and a
remote one in Italy, that the queues in the MTAs would bunch up behind a
large message. After extensive Exchange troubleshooting (in vain) it
turned out we had a "dirty" WAN circuit - when that was replaced mail flow
ret
11:03 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: X.400 issues
Once it leaves the server you are at the mercy of the internet. Or are these
internal emails.
- Original Message -
From: "Bennett, Joshua" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PRO
e.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or
guestimate what "too long"[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective
you) could include the Event ID sourc
Once it leaves the server you are at the mercy of the internet. Or are these
internal emails.
- Original Message -
From: "Bennett, Joshua" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:24 AM
Subject:
, 2002 10:45 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
No, however I am getting a lot of 9202 errors on the remote server.
-Original Message-
From: Atkinson, Miles [mailto:miles.atkinson@;bakerhughes.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:37 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject
Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or
guestimate what "too long"[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective
you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the
number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times whic
No, however I am getting a lot of 9202 errors on the remote server.
-Original Message-
From: Atkinson, Miles [mailto:miles.atkinson@;bakerhughes.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:37 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
Any other events logged such as Event ID 57
Any other events logged such as Event ID 57 ?
<>
No, however I occasionally get complaints that it take too long.
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sit
No, however I occasionally get complaints that it take too long.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse@;hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:10 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: X.400 issues
I would investigate if your having any issues with the network
I would investigate if your having any issues with the network itself. Has
anyone complain they didn't get there mail sent?
- Original Message -
From: "Bennett, Joshua" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:55 AM
Subject: X.400
Not sure how that came about. In Site Addressing modify the address (change
the space to something else, hit apply, modify it back to a space, hit apply
and OK, then say yes to the popup). That will rewrite everyone's address.
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Lounder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The archives will reveal detailed answers to this question. My feeling is
it is sufficient to have something like Antigen or ScanMail running on all
of your servers, along with an SMTP scanner on your DMZ relay host, but
YMMV.
Serdar Soysal
-Original Message-
From: James Mike [mailto:
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
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 ?
_
EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:17 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: 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 th
D]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Peoples
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 9:17 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: 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
connec
: 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
m 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 mess
: 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
ch 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...
Sorr
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 - nothin
, 2002 7:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: 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
nuary 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 ca
[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...?
>
---
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 SM
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:
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
L 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
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
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 Pe
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 t
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
The list stripped out the original headers. The message actually originated
from postoffice01.aruplabs.com
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 10:32 PM
Subject: X
>
> --_ABC1234567890DEF_
Y'all need to check the headers of the original message; didn't come from
me.
- Original Message -
From: "Andy David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 7:37 AM
Subject: RE: X
I think I'll add this to my disclaimer.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 11:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: X
--_ABC1234567890DEF_
_
It's all so clear now. Thank you for showing me the true meaning of
Christmas.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 11:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: X
--_ABC1234567890DEF_
__
December 2001 12:33
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X
another Bin. Lads Coded Message ..? :-)
Kuminda Chandimith
Sr. Technical Consultant
Ducont.com FZ-LLC
Tel: + 971-4-3913000 Ext 237
Fax: +971-4-3913001
http://www.ducont.com
-Original Message-
From: Jennifer Baker [mailto:[EMAIL
: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X
Yes, Master.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 8:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: X
--_ABC1234567890DEF_
Yes, Master.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 8:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: X
--_ABC1234567890DEF_
_
List posting FAQ: htt
M X
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 8:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: X
--_ABC1234567890DEF_
_
List posting FAQ: http://w
and they
have reached it.
Sandhya
-Original Message-
From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:12 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 Error
Hi John
I thought this was an ongoing, persistent problem. Sorry if I gave you bad
advice.
Hi John
I thought this was an ongoing, persistent problem. Sorry if I gave you bad
advice.
Thanks
Russell
-Original Message-
From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 2:48 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 Error
Russell,
No I
The administrative field cannot be blank. By default it is set to a .
Wouldn't be the first time someone blanked it out unintentionally.
Quick fix: open the x.400 addressing object for the site. Modify the x.400
address (like the administrative field) and hit apply (NOT OK yet). Modify
it to a a
wles, John L.
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 2:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 Error
Yea that's what I thought orginally. But all the other accounts don't have
the space in them and they all seem to work just fine.
___
John Bowles
Ex
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 2:41 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: X.400 Error
Haven't played with or do not have a 5.5 Exchange box all my current work is
2000 with me. But wasn't there s
EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 2:19 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: X.400 Error
>
>
> Russell,
>
> I've looked through a few accounts. And all the accounts have nothing in
> those fields. Same
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 2:38 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 Error
Hi John
This was just a shot in the dark. I'm not too sure exactly what the Q
article is referring to, but if you populate those X.400 fields in the two
"problem" accounts, doe
EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 2:19 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 Error
Russell,
I've looked through a few accounts. And all the accounts have nothing in
those fields. Same as the two accounts in question. Is there something I'm
missing h
p; Engineering
Celera Genomics
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-Original Message-
From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 1:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 Error
Importance: High
Hi there
I'll take a st
Hi there
I'll take a stab at this
If you go into the properties of the email address of the person in
question, you can modify their X.400 address. In the advanced properties,
you can set the values mentioned in the Q article listed below. Try that
and see if that works.
Thanks
Russell
I read it with him. And have no clue either.
--
Kevinm M WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, CKWSE CKST
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bowles, John L.
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 10:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: X.400 Error
All,
I'm
X400 uses port 102
-Original Message-
From: uppiliv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, 26 October 2001 2:00 a.m.
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: x.4oo and Firewall (checkpoint 2000)
I have two sites running exchange server.
The network is as follows
MS Exchange server---
Try specifying the other host with an IP address
rather than a NetBIOS name (which won't work at all)
or a DNS name (which often doesn't work right).
Ed Crowley
Compaq Computer
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi guys,
> We have an x400 connector between 2 exchange servers
> (UK and US) connected
Don't know if it will help but have a look at Q196381. It does talk about a
Raptor FW, but might have some bearing on your situation. The other
connectors you speak of, how are they configured?
Matthew
Exchange Disaster Recovery, Live it, Learn It, Love It, Get yours today!
http://www.microso
Also, be sure to set up the address space correctly to cover just enough of
the address to have the mail route correctly.
-Original Message-
From: Bueffel, Scott M - CNF [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 7:29 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400
If you don't want to replicate the directory, you can just set up the
connector to their Exchange org. But mail won't route to them unless you
manually enter the x.400 address in the form of [x.400:address] or create
CRs that have that info already entered. Perhaps they can perform a dir
export
95 matches
Mail list logo