RE: x.400 name
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 not in AD. This info is found in RFC952 in the Lexical Grammar section (I had this info on file from a customer site and it was not the easiest documentation to find!). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 10:01 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: x.400 name Does anyone know of any issues with an x.400 address that contains an underscore. It looks like the x.400 generator puts a "?" for the underscore, but is this a problem. I am working on a system that is upgrading from exchange 5.5, 3 sites, connected with site connectors. We are unsure if some of the unknown mail routing issues are a result of this underscore in the ORG name that is in the x.400 address. _ 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 name
Does anyone know of any issues with an x.400 address that contains an underscore. It looks like the x.400 generator puts a "?" for the underscore, but is this a problem. I am working on a system that is upgrading from exchange 5.5, 3 sites, connected with site connectors. We are unsure if some of the unknown mail routing issues are a result of this underscore in the ORG name that is in the x.400 address. _ 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: Mac OS X and SMTP Auth on Exchange
It's about time. Ryan, -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 4:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Mac OS X and SMTP Auth on Exchange While this doesn't answer your main question, you might find this article interesting in relation to your last question: http://news.com.com/2100-1040-984074.html?part=dht&tag=nhl -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Mac OS X and SMTP Auth on Exchange Hi all. I have Exchange 2000 SP3. One of the customers has Macs and they are using the mail applet that comes with Mac OS X (POP3/SMTP) They are reporting that often they can't send mail using our Exchange 2000 front-end servers. They get a pop-up error: the SMTP server "exchange.hosting.innerhost.com" rejected the password for user "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Please re-enter your password or cancel. (I have changed the username for the purpose of this post) We require SMTP Authentication on our servers. Is there something special about the Macs? (like the format of the username, or maybe it does not like the @ sign) Or is Mac mail just not compatible with Exchange? _ 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: Mac OS X and SMTP Auth on Exchange
Well, currently entourage can using LDAP... But that's another kettle of fish. On 2/11/03 16:46, "Andrey Fyodorov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: thanks Last time someone tried to connect to our Exchange servers with a MAPI-configured Outlook for Macintosh it did not work - that dumb application only understands the Default Global Address List. I hope they will teach Entourage how to see other global address lists. -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 4:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Mac OS X and SMTP Auth on Exchange While this doesn't answer your main question, you might find this article interesting in relation to your last question: http://news.com.com/2100-1040-984074.html?part=dht=nhl <http://news.com.com/2100-1040-984074.html?part=dht&tag=nhl> -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Mac OS X and SMTP Auth on Exchange Hi all. I have Exchange 2000 SP3. One of the customers has Macs and they are using the mail applet that comes with Mac OS X (POP3/SMTP) They are reporting that often they can't send mail using our Exchange 2000 front-end servers. They get a pop-up error: the SMTP server "exchange.hosting.innerhost.com" rejected the password for user "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Please re-enter your password or cancel. (I have changed the username for the purpose of this post) We require SMTP Authentication on our servers. Is there something special about the Macs? (like the format of the username, or maybe it does not like the @ sign) Or is Mac mail just not compatible with Exchange? _ 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: Mac OS X and SMTP Auth on Exchange
I use domain\username for my authentication and it works just fine. Haven't tried it with the SMTP address (can't at the moment either unfortunately). On 2/11/03 15:22, "Andrey Fyodorov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi all. I have Exchange 2000 SP3. One of the customers has Macs and they are using the mail applet that comes with Mac OS X (POP3/SMTP) They are reporting that often they can't send mail using our Exchange 2000 front-end servers. They get a pop-up error: the SMTP server "exchange.hosting.innerhost.com" rejected the password for user "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Please re-enter your password or cancel. (I have changed the username for the purpose of this post) We require SMTP Authentication on our servers. Is there something special about the Macs? (like the format of the username, or maybe it does not like the @ sign) Or is Mac mail just not compatible with Exchange? _ 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: Mac OS X and SMTP Auth on Exchange
I've used the OS X Mail app with our 5.5 server without any problem. I went back to Entourage a while back though, and don't remember if there were any setup oddities with Mail. -Peter -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 13:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Mac OS X and SMTP Auth on Exchange Hi all. I have Exchange 2000 SP3. One of the customers has Macs and they are using the mail applet that comes with Mac OS X (POP3/SMTP) They are reporting that often they can't send mail using our Exchange 2000 front-end servers. They get a pop-up error: the SMTP server "exchange.hosting.innerhost.com" rejected the password for user "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Please re-enter your password or cancel. (I have changed the username for the purpose of this post) We require SMTP Authentication on our servers. Is there something special about the Macs? (like the format of the username, or maybe it does not like the @ sign) Or is Mac mail just not compatible with Exchange? _ 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 is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please delete it and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send this message to anyone else. _ 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: Mac OS X and SMTP Auth on Exchange
thanks Last time someone tried to connect to our Exchange servers with a MAPI-configured Outlook for Macintosh it did not work - that dumb application only understands the Default Global Address List. I hope they will teach Entourage how to see other global address lists. -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 4:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Mac OS X and SMTP Auth on Exchange While this doesn't answer your main question, you might find this article interesting in relation to your last question: http://news.com.com/2100-1040-984074.html?part=dht&tag=nhl -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Mac OS X and SMTP Auth on Exchange Hi all. I have Exchange 2000 SP3. One of the customers has Macs and they are using the mail applet that comes with Mac OS X (POP3/SMTP) They are reporting that often they can't send mail using our Exchange 2000 front-end servers. They get a pop-up error: the SMTP server "exchange.hosting.innerhost.com" rejected the password for user "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Please re-enter your password or cancel. (I have changed the username for the purpose of this post) We require SMTP Authentication on our servers. Is there something special about the Macs? (like the format of the username, or maybe it does not like the @ sign) Or is Mac mail just not compatible with Exchange? _ 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: Mac OS X and SMTP Auth on Exchange
While this doesn't answer your main question, you might find this article interesting in relation to your last question: http://news.com.com/2100-1040-984074.html?part=dht&tag=nhl -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Mac OS X and SMTP Auth on Exchange Hi all. I have Exchange 2000 SP3. One of the customers has Macs and they are using the mail applet that comes with Mac OS X (POP3/SMTP) They are reporting that often they can't send mail using our Exchange 2000 front-end servers. They get a pop-up error: the SMTP server "exchange.hosting.innerhost.com" rejected the password for user "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Please re-enter your password or cancel. (I have changed the username for the purpose of this post) We require SMTP Authentication on our servers. Is there something special about the Macs? (like the format of the username, or maybe it does not like the @ sign) Or is Mac mail just not compatible with Exchange? _ 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]
Mac OS X and SMTP Auth on Exchange
Hi all. I have Exchange 2000 SP3. One of the customers has Macs and they are using the mail applet that comes with Mac OS X (POP3/SMTP) They are reporting that often they can't send mail using our Exchange 2000 front-end servers. They get a pop-up error: the SMTP server "exchange.hosting.innerhost.com" rejected the password for user "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Please re-enter your password or cancel. (I have changed the username for the purpose of this post) We require SMTP Authentication on our servers. Is there something special about the Macs? (like the format of the username, or maybe it does not like the @ sign) Or is Mac mail just not compatible with Exchange? _ 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 connector problem solved
Hi It was basically due to a FQDN problem. the resolution was to add some PTR entry in DNS. but I resorted in entering the Ip addr instead of making entrys in DNS. Now it started working. What is surprising is that the exchange does not log a error event but instead resorts to a warning message. Regards E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Hanumanthappa, Santhosh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 12:27 PM To: [ExchangeList] Subject: [exchangelist] X.400 connector problem http://www.MSExchange.org/ Hi I have setup x.400 connector on exchange 5.5 between two sites. but unfortunately the communication is not happening. I checked the MTA queue all the DS and IS and mail are queued up. I tried reinstalling the connector and the server itself no luck. Lastly checked the event log there was a log from MTA Event ID 9156 even this resolution did not help Also there is another event log - Event 9202 A sockets error 0 on an accept() call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: 1. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256] (12) Regards Santhosh.H E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Joseph A. Christian via ms-exchange-l [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 11:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ms-exchange-l] Distibution list recovery ITtoolbox: http://www.ITtoolbox.com -Original Message- From: Joseph A. Christian Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 10:58 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: I have an end user that deleted a large distribution group from her contacts. Does anyone know how to restore a specific distribution group? We are using exchange 2000. And Outlook 2k is her client. Thanks, *Archives: http://www.OpenITx.com/g/ms-exchange-l.asp *Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Terms of Use: http://www.ittoolbox.com/help/termsofuse.htm *Copyright (c) ITtoolbox and message author. No redistribution. ** This message and any attachments are intended for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not forward, copy, print, use or disclose this communication to others; also please notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. The Timken Company ** -- List Archives: http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist Exchange Newsletters: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/newsletter.asp Exchange FAQ: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/larticle.asp?type=FAQ -- ISA Server Resource Site: http://www.isaserver.org Windows Security Resource Site: http://www.windowsecurity.com/ Windows 2000/NT Fax Solutions: http://www.ntfaxfaq.com -- You are currently subscribed to this MSExchange.org Discussion List as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [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: Recall: X.400 connector problem
Sorry, too late... Already read it -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Hanumanthappa, Santhosh Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 02:25 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Recall: X.400 connector problem Hanumanthappa, Santhosh would like to recall the message, "X.400 connector problem". ** This message and any attachments are intended for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not forward, copy, print, use or disclose this communication to others; also please notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. The Timken Company ** _ 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]
Recall: X.400 connector problem
Hanumanthappa, Santhosh would like to recall the message, "X.400 connector problem". ** This message and any attachments are intended for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not forward, copy, print, use or disclose this communication to others; also please notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. The Timken Company ** _ 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]
Trend eManager 5.x Notifies Recipients
This was posted back in May '02 by someone else. Any new thoughts? NT4 SP6a EX 5.5 SP4 ScanMail 3.8 eManager 5.10 (5.11 will NOT work on this particular server?) In version 5.x the developers changed the product to strip the body and replace it with custom text that says "The original message content contained a virus or was blocked due to blocking rules and has been removed." I do have the ScanMail Management Console (not the e-manager console) option for "Active Message Filter" outbound checked. (inbound is not there) I opened a case with Trend yesterday; I was informed I could only voice my discontent through Feature Feedback in level 2 support. Trend internally to avoid this has setup two eManager servers, one Interscan eManager upstream and one integrated with ScanMail to get rid of these messages according to the tech I spoke to. Spending more $$ to fix something my client sees as a BUG is not an option. As I see it, my only option for my clients running this is to create a rule in OL to delete based on some of the text in the body. This fires whether the policy is set to Quarantine or Delete. So, if your goal is to delete spam, you end up with a 1:1. All eManager is doing is hiding the latest widget. Regards, Mark FAY CONSULTING, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.fay.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: X-OriginalArrivalTime
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 time, you'll find that offset is -7:00 for yourself, rather than 6. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Edgington, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 10:32 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: X-OriginalArrivalTime > > > While looking at one of the mail headers for my exchange system, I > noticed that the X-OriginalArrivalTime value is 6 hours in the future > from all other time-stamps in the header. I didn't find > anything about > this value in RFC-2821 or RFC-2822. I also didn't find > anything on the > MS KB and only enough information on the web to state that > X-OriginalArrivalTime is supposed to be the time at which a > message has > entered the transport system. I've already checked the time on all my > servers (GCs and E2K boxes) and all are correct. I also > found that all > 7 servers that I have are consistently using a value that is exactly 6 > hours in the future. > > This doesn't appear to be causing any troubles, but for my own > edification I'm looking for the answer to this mystery... any > light that > someone could shed on this would be much appreciated. > > Thanks!! > > 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: X-OriginalArrivalTime
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 for my exchange system, I noticed that the X-OriginalArrivalTime value is 6 hours in the future from all other time-stamps in the header. I didn't find anything about this value in RFC-2821 or RFC-2822. I also didn't find anything on the MS KB and only enough information on the web to state that X-OriginalArrivalTime is supposed to be the time at which a message has entered the transport system. I've already checked the time on all my servers (GCs and E2K boxes) and all are correct. I also found that all 7 servers that I have are consistently using a value that is exactly 6 hours in the future. This doesn't appear to be causing any troubles, but for my own edification I'm looking for the answer to this mystery... any light that someone could shed on this would be much appreciated. Thanks!! 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]
X-OriginalArrivalTime
While looking at one of the mail headers for my exchange system, I noticed that the X-OriginalArrivalTime value is 6 hours in the future from all other time-stamps in the header. I didn't find anything about this value in RFC-2821 or RFC-2822. I also didn't find anything on the MS KB and only enough information on the web to state that X-OriginalArrivalTime is supposed to be the time at which a message has entered the transport system. I've already checked the time on all my servers (GCs and E2K boxes) and all are correct. I also found that all 7 servers that I have are consistently using a value that is exactly 6 hours in the future. This doesn't appear to be causing any troubles, but for my own edification I'm looking for the answer to this mystery... any light that someone could shed on this would be much appreciated. Thanks!! 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]
Re: Routing Problem Xch 5.5 / E2K / X.400
Still not sure why the X.400 connector was used and why the messages where sent to the server in the same routing group but we added SMTP domain names of the domains we want to go through the X.400 connector and that got us working. Still trying to figure out it didn't work normally. regards Uso - Original Message - From: "Uso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 11:52 AM Subject: Routing Problem Xch 5.5 / E2K / X.400 > I have Xch 5.5 (adg-abd-serv1) and added now an Xhg 2000 (adg-abd-xch) > server for migration. > adg-abd-serv1 used to send mail via x.400 to another xch 5.5 (admsgsrv1). > I configured a x.400 connector between adg-abd-xch and admsgsrv1 and removed > the old x.400 connector between adg-abd-serv1 and admsgsrv1. > Now when I send email to an x.400 contact the mail goes out to adg-abd-serv1 > (it's in the same routing group as the new exchange 2000 server) instead of > going through the X.400 connector. > I then receive email NDR like: > > 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... > > Why is the x.400 connector not used? When I freeze the queue I can see the > message in the queue going to adg-abd-serv1 and I can see that it has an > X.400 address of my contact showing it's location in my org and not the > x.400 showing the destination org. > > Any help is appreciate. > > regards > USO > > > _ > 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]
Routing Problem Xch 5.5 / E2K / X.400
I have Xch 5.5 (adg-abd-serv1) and added now an Xhg 2000 (adg-abd-xch) server for migration. adg-abd-serv1 used to send mail via x.400 to another xch 5.5 (admsgsrv1). I configured a x.400 connector between adg-abd-xch and admsgsrv1 and removed the old x.400 connector between adg-abd-serv1 and admsgsrv1. Now when I send email to an x.400 contact the mail goes out to adg-abd-serv1 (it's in the same routing group as the new exchange 2000 server) instead of going through the X.400 connector. I then receive email NDR like: 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... Why is the x.400 connector not used? When I freeze the queue I can see the message in the queue going to adg-abd-serv1 and I can see that it has an X.400 address of my contact showing it's location in my org and not the x.400 showing the destination org. Any help is appreciate. regards USO _ 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: Port blocking SMTP & X.400
Thanks this is good information as I learn little by little. Our IMC is on it's own separate box, so that would require port 25. The systems that house our users do not have a IMC's but pass mail to the dedicated IMC's, so they don't need port 25. X.400...since it's used internally by 5.5, sounds as if I need it on all the Exchange systems. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 3:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Port blocking SMTP & X.400 Without knowing exactly how you are configured, it is difficult to provide meaningful recommendations, but I'll give it a shot. In Exchange 5.5 if you do not have an IMC set up on it, then you should not need port 25. Same thing with X.400. If you are not running any X.400 connectors, then you should not need it. However, be a little careful here since Exchange 5.5, internally is X.400 based (Exchange 2000 internally is SMTP based) Those ports sound correct for the PDC and BDC, but I did not check to make absolutely certain. And again, without knowing your configuration and what you are trying to do with these systems, it is very difficult to provide any concrete advice. > We're in the process of locking down ports for our Exchange 5.5 deployment. > I've read the FAQ's and found ports required, but have a couple of > questions. > > If you have a Exchange Server with no IMC on it just mailboxes do you need > TCP 25 SMTP enabled. I would think it should only be enabled for the > servers with the IMC on it not on servers that only have mailboxes. > > X.400 TCP 102, Is this really required for Exchange Servers and if so what > is it used for. Looking at TechNet, its used by older messaging systems? > > For PDC and BDC's with no Exchange. What ports do I need for those guys > since they only perform authentification. Would that be TCP 137 & 139? > > Pete Pfefferkorn > Senior Systems Engineer/Mail Administrator > University of Cincinnati > 51 Goodman Street > Cincinnati, OH 45221 > Phone - (513) 556-9076 > Fax - (513) 556-2042 _ 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: Port blocking SMTP & X.400
Without knowing exactly how you are configured, it is difficult to provide meaningful recommendations, but I'll give it a shot. In Exchange 5.5 if you do not have an IMC set up on it, then you should not need port 25. Same thing with X.400. If you are not running any X.400 connectors, then you should not need it. However, be a little careful here since Exchange 5.5, internally is X.400 based (Exchange 2000 internally is SMTP based) Those ports sound correct for the PDC and BDC, but I did not check to make absolutely certain. And again, without knowing your configuration and what you are trying to do with these systems, it is very difficult to provide any concrete advice. > We're in the process of locking down ports for our Exchange 5.5 deployment. > I've read the FAQ's and found ports required, but have a couple of > questions. > > If you have a Exchange Server with no IMC on it just mailboxes do you need > TCP 25 SMTP enabled. I would think it should only be enabled for the > servers with the IMC on it not on servers that only have mailboxes. > > X.400 TCP 102, Is this really required for Exchange Servers and if so what > is it used for. Looking at TechNet, its used by older messaging systems? > > For PDC and BDC's with no Exchange. What ports do I need for those guys > since they only perform authentification. Would that be TCP 137 & 139? > > Pete Pfefferkorn > Senior Systems Engineer/Mail Administrator > University of Cincinnati > 51 Goodman Street > Cincinnati, OH 45221 > Phone - (513) 556-9076 > Fax - (513) 556-2042 _ 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]
Port blocking SMTP & X.400
We're in the process of locking down ports for our Exchange 5.5 deployment. I've read the FAQ's and found ports required, but have a couple of questions. If you have a Exchange Server with no IMC on it just mailboxes do you need TCP 25 SMTP enabled. I would think it should only be enabled for the servers with the IMC on it not on servers that only have mailboxes. X.400 TCP 102, Is this really required for Exchange Servers and if so what is it used for. Looking at TechNet, its used by older messaging systems? For PDC and BDC's with no Exchange. What ports do I need for those guys since they only perform authentification. Would that be TCP 137 & 139? Pete Pfefferkorn Senior Systems Engineer/Mail Administrator University of Cincinnati 51 Goodman Street Cincinnati, OH 45221 Phone - (513) 556-9076 Fax - (513) 556-2042 _ 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 issues
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 a consultant or a new resume. At this point, the consultant is the better choice. Seriously - this gets into the big ugly of how Exchange 5.5 routes mail, and goes back to what I said the other day about connector cost being one of the last used factors in routing mail. Since you're routing across organizations, your x.400 connectors have some very specific address space entries, and I'll bet that you messed one of those up. And that's way to hard to figure out in this kind of forum. Personally, I'd either go for the consultant, or go call PSS and spend the money to get them to walk you though the fixes. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Bennett, 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 are, > however (through some procedure that I am have no knowledge > of that was done > 2 years before I took this over) faked into thinking that > they are in the > same ORG. I have no idea how any of this was done, again > before my time. I > may want to just delete the old X.400 between SD and Irvine > and force a > re-calculation of the routing table. I am grasping a straws > at this point. > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com] > Sent: 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 (cost 1) > EC <-x400-> SD (cost 1) > Irvine <-x400-> SD (cost 100) > > EC <-IMC (cost 1?) > Irvine <-IMC (Cost 99) > > Now, a few things to keep in mind. In the grand scheme of > Ex5.5 routing, > cost is the 7th (of 7) factors used for routing decisions, > and therefore > doesn't play as much of a role in routing as it should. > However, make sure > that you've set the cost correctly at both ends, and make > sure that you're > not setting the option to only use least cost routes. > > Now - another question. You bought this company. Did you > migrate them to the > same Org as your company, or are they set up as a separate > org name? If they > are different orgs, what are the address space entries on > your x.400 and IMS > with regards to the other company's domains? > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: 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 connected to > > the other remote server in Irvine, CA by an X.400 > > connector over a T1. > > The only server that was connected to the hub server on the > > E. Coast was > > the one in Irvine. There was an X.400 connector between SD > > and Irvine, then > > an X.400connector to the EC. There is now an separate X.400 > > connector from SD and Irvine to the hub server. The > > Irvine server > > has an IMC that was used by the old company (that was bought > > by us). The > > cost on the connectors to the hub server from each site > > is set to 1. > > The old connector from SD to Irvine has a cost of > 100. The IMC on > > Irvine is set to 99. I would like to remove the old connector from > > SD-Irvine but, the connectors from each remote site to the hub > > server is > > sooo erratic that I have mail that routes from > > SD-Irvine-out the > > IMC in Irvine then back to the hub server on the E. Coast > > through the > > corporate IMC. > >
RE: X.400 issues
Now we have the picture... You either need a consultant or a new resume. At this point, the consultant is the better choice. Seriously - this gets into the big ugly of how Exchange 5.5 routes mail, and goes back to what I said the other day about connector cost being one of the last used factors in routing mail. Since you're routing across organizations, your x.400 connectors have some very specific address space entries, and I'll bet that you messed one of those up. And that's way to hard to figure out in this kind of forum. Personally, I'd either go for the consultant, or go call PSS and spend the money to get them to walk you though the fixes. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Bennett, 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 are, > however (through some procedure that I am have no knowledge > of that was done > 2 years before I took this over) faked into thinking that > they are in the > same ORG. I have no idea how any of this was done, again > before my time. I > may want to just delete the old X.400 between SD and Irvine > and force a > re-calculation of the routing table. I am grasping a straws > at this point. > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com] > Sent: 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 (cost 1) > EC <-x400-> SD (cost 1) > Irvine <-x400-> SD (cost 100) > > EC <-IMC (cost 1?) > Irvine <-IMC (Cost 99) > > Now, a few things to keep in mind. In the grand scheme of > Ex5.5 routing, > cost is the 7th (of 7) factors used for routing decisions, > and therefore > doesn't play as much of a role in routing as it should. > However, make sure > that you've set the cost correctly at both ends, and make > sure that you're > not setting the option to only use least cost routes. > > Now - another question. You bought this company. Did you > migrate them to the > same Org as your company, or are they set up as a separate > org name? If they > are different orgs, what are the address space entries on > your x.400 and IMS > with regards to the other company's domains? > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: 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 > > connected to > > the other remote server in Irvine, CA by an X.400 > > connector over a T1. > > The only server that was connected to the hub server on the > > E. Coast was > > the one in Irvine. There was an X.400 connector between SD > > and Irvine, then > > an X.400connector to the EC. There is now an separate X.400 > > connector from SD and Irvine to the hub server. The > > Irvine server > > has an IMC that was used by the old company (that was bought > > by us). The > > cost on the connectors to the hub server from each site > > is set to 1. > > The old connector from SD to Irvine has a cost of > 100. The IMC on > > Irvine is set to 99. I would like to remove the old connector from > > SD-Irvine but, the connectors from each remote site to the > > hub server is > > sooo erratic that I have mail that routes from > > SD-Irvine-out the > > IMC in Irvine then back to the hub server on the E. Coast > > through the > > corporate IMC. > > > > There is the jist of what I am going through. It is driving > > me nuts trying > > to troubleshoot this. > > > > Please help. > > > > Josh > > > > -Original Message- &
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 are, however (through some procedure that I am have no knowledge of that was done 2 years before I took this over) faked into thinking that they are in the same ORG. I have no idea how any of this was done, again before my time. I may want to just delete the old X.400 between SD and Irvine and force a re-calculation of the routing table. I am grasping a straws at this point. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com] Sent: 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 (cost 1) EC <-x400-> SD (cost 1) Irvine <-x400-> SD (cost 100) EC <-IMC (cost 1?) Irvine <-IMC (Cost 99) Now, a few things to keep in mind. In the grand scheme of Ex5.5 routing, cost is the 7th (of 7) factors used for routing decisions, and therefore doesn't play as much of a role in routing as it should. However, make sure that you've set the cost correctly at both ends, and make sure that you're not setting the option to only use least cost routes. Now - another question. You bought this company. Did you migrate them to the same Org as your company, or are they set up as a separate org name? If they are different orgs, what are the address space entries on your x.400 and IMS with regards to the other company's domains? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: 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 > connected to > the other remote server in Irvine,CA by an X.400 > connector over a T1. > The only server that was connected to the hub server on the > E.Coast was > the one in Irvine. There was an X.400 connector between SD > and Irvine, then > an X.400 connector to the EC. There is now an separate X.400 > connector from SD and Irvine to the hub server. The > Irvine server > has an IMC that was used by the old company (that was bought > by us). The > cost on the connectors to the hub server from each site > is set to 1. > The old connector from SD to Irvine has a cost of 100. The IMC on > Irvine is set to 99. I would like to remove the old connector from > SD-Irvine but, the connectors from each remote site to the > hub server is > sooo erratic that I have mail that routes from > SD-Irvine-out the > IMC in Irvine then back to the hub server on the E. Coast > through the > corporate IMC. > > There is the jist of what I am going through. It is driving > me nuts trying > to troubleshoot this. > > Please help. > > Josh > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [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? > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly 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 then flush clean in a 2 > > minute span once the X.400 connection is successful. However, due to > > the way the > > routing table is, I have messages flowing in a roundabout fashion. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;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 10 connects per
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 (cost 1) EC <-x400-> SD (cost 1) Irvine <-x400-> SD (cost 100) EC <-IMC (cost 1?) Irvine <-IMC (Cost 99) Now, a few things to keep in mind. In the grand scheme of Ex5.5 routing, cost is the 7th (of 7) factors used for routing decisions, and therefore doesn't play as much of a role in routing as it should. However, make sure that you've set the cost correctly at both ends, and make sure that you're not setting the option to only use least cost routes. Now - another question. You bought this company. Did you migrate them to the same Org as your company, or are they set up as a separate org name? If they are different orgs, what are the address space entries on your x.400 and IMS with regards to the other company's domains? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: 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 > connected to > the other remote server in Irvine,CA by an X.400 > connector over a T1. > The only server that was connected to the hub server on the > E.Coast was > the one in Irvine. There was an X.400 connector between SD > and Irvine, then > an X.400 connector to the EC. There is now an separate X.400 > connector from SD and Irvine to the hub server. The > Irvine server > has an IMC that was used by the old company (that was bought > by us). The > cost on the connectors to the hub server from each site > is set to 1. > The old connector from SD to Irvine has a cost of 100. The IMC on > Irvine is set to 99. I would like to remove the old connector from > SD-Irvine but, the connectors from each remote site to the > hub server is > sooo erratic that I have mail that routes from > SD-Irvine-out the > IMC in Irvine then back to the hub server on the E. Coast > through the > corporate IMC. > > There is the jist of what I am going through. It is driving > me nuts trying > to troubleshoot this. > > Please help. > > Josh > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [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? > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly 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 then flush clean in > > a 2 minute > > span once the X.400 connection is successful. However, due to > > the way the > > routing table is, I have messages flowing in a roundabout fashion. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;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 10 connects per association. > > > > Are you sure there aren't any looping messages, or a > butload of public > > folder replication traffic? Is there anything in the MTA queue? > > > > -- > > 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 3:11 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subj
Re: X.400 issues
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 05, 2002 3:36 PM 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 connected to > the other remote server in Irvine, CA by an X.400 connector over a T1. > The only server that was connected to the hub server on the E. Coast was > the one in Irvine. There was an X.400 connector between SD and Irvine, then > an X.400 connector to the EC. There is now an separate X.400 > connector from SD and Irvine to the hub server. The Irvine server > has an IMC that was used by the old company (that was bought by us). The > cost on the connectors to the hub server from each site is set to 1. > The old connector from SD to Irvine has a cost of 100. The IMC on > Irvine is set to 99. I would like to remove the old connector from > SD-Irvine but, the connectors from each remote site to the hub server is > sooo erratic that I have mail that routes from SD-Irvine-out the > IMC in Irvine then back to the hub server on the E. Coast through the > corporate IMC. > > There is the jist of what I am going through. It is driving me nuts trying > to troubleshoot this. > > Please help. > > Josh > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [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? > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly 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 then flush clean in > > a 2 minute > > span once the X.400 connection is successful. However, due to > > the way the > > routing table is, I have messages flowing in a roundabout fashion. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;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 10 connects per association. > > > > Are you sure there aren't any looping messages, or a butload of public > > folder replication traffic? Is there anything in the MTA queue? > > > > ------ > > 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 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. > > > > > > -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 > > > > > > > > > The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd > > > start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul > > > Robichaux, if you have that > > > handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is > > > called control > > > blocks. > > > > > > -- > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > &
Re: X.400 issues
- 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 remote server is in San Diego that used to be connected to > the other remote server in Irvine, CA by an X.400 connector over a T1. > The only server that was connected to the hub server on the E. Coast was > the one in Irvine. There was an X.400 connector between SD and Irvine, then > an X.400 connector to the EC. There is now an separate X.400 > connector from SD and Irvine to the hub server. The Irvine server > has an IMC that was used by the old company (that was bought by us). The > cost on the connectors to the hub server from each site is set to 1. > The old connector from SD to Irvine has a cost of 100. The IMC on > Irvine is set to 99. I would like to remove the old connector from > SD-Irvine but, the connectors from each remote site to the hub server is > sooo erratic that I have mail that routes from SD-Irvine-out the > IMC in Irvine then back to the hub server on the E. Coast through the > corporate IMC. > > There is the jist of what I am going through. It is driving me nuts trying > to troubleshoot this. > > Please help. > > Josh > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [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? > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly 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 then flush clean in > > a 2 minute > > span once the X.400 connection is successful. However, due to > > the way the > > routing table is, I have messages flowing in a roundabout fashion. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;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 10 connects per association. > > > > Are you sure there aren't any looping messages, or a butload of public > > folder replication traffic? Is there anything in the MTA queue? > > > > -- > > 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 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. > > > > > > -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 > > > > > > > > > The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd > > > start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul > > > Robichaux, if you have that > > > handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is > > > called control > > > blocks. > > > > > > -- > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > > > > Sen
RE: X.400 issues
Not really an option. The scenario is this: The one remote server is in San Diego that used to be connected to the other remote server in Irvine, CA by an X.400 connector over a T1. The only server that was connected to the hub server on the E. Coast was the one in Irvine. There was an X.400 connector between SD and Irvine, then an X.400connector to the EC. There is now an separate X.400 connector from SD and Irvine to the hub server. The Irvine server has an IMC that was used by the old company (that was bought by us). The cost on the connectors to the hub server from each site is set to 1. The old connector from SD to Irvine has a cost of 100. The IMC on Irvine is set to 99. I would like to remove the old connector from SD-Irvine but, the connectors from each remote site to the hub server is sooo erratic that I have mail that routes from SD-Irvine-out the IMC in Irvine then back to the hub server on the E. Coast through the corporate IMC. There is the jist of what I am going through. It is driving me nuts trying to troubleshoot this. Please help. Josh -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [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? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly 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 then flush clean in > a 2 minute > span once the X.400 connection is successful. However, due to > the way the > routing table is, I have messages flowing in a roundabout fashion. > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;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 10 connects per association. > > Are you sure there aren't any looping messages, or a butload of public > folder replication traffic? Is there anything in the MTA queue? > > -- > 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 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. > > > > -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 > > > > > > The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd > > start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul > > Robichaux, if you have that > > handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is > > called control > > blocks. > > > > -- > > 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.400 issues > > > > > > > > > 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" with "definitely are" > > > > > > > > >
Re: X.400 issues
This is something I have seen/heard about before. I just can't remember what the heck it was. Should someone shed light on this fly in your ointment let me know. Of course if the light bulb goes off I let you know. - Original Message - From: "Bennett, Joshua" <[EMAIL 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 way the > routing table is, I have messages flowing in a roundabout fashion. > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;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 10 connects per association. > > Are you sure there aren't any looping messages, or a butload of public > folder replication traffic? Is there anything in the MTA queue? > > -- > 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 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. > > > > -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 > > > > > > The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where > > I'd start. The > > best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if > > you have that > > handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is > > called control > > blocks. > > > > -- > > 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.400 issues > > > > > > > > > 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" with "definitely are" > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 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. > > > > > > > > -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 > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: Mo
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? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly 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 then flush clean in > a 2 minute > span once the X.400 connection is successful. However, due to > the way the > routing table is, I have messages flowing in a roundabout fashion. > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;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 10 connects per association. > > Are you sure there aren't any looping messages, or a butload of public > folder replication traffic? Is there anything in the MTA queue? > > -- > 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 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. > > > > -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 > > > > > > The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where > > I'd start. The > > best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if > > you have that > > handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is > > called control > > blocks. > > > > -- > > 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.400 issues > > > > > > > > > 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" with "definitely are" > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 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. > > > > > > > > -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 > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site > > Connectors. Yes > > > > x400 are more efficient just curious. > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > Fr
RE: X.400 issues
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, Joshua" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 2:10 PM 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. > > -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 > > > The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd start. > The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if you > have that > handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is called > control blocks. > > -- > 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.400 issues > > > > > > 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" with "definitely are" > > > > > > -- > > 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 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. > > > > > > -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 > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site > > > > organization, > > > any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 > > > connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in > > > the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. > > > > > > > > And, if you delete the dirrep 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: 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 > > > > in > > > Exchange > > > > to clear this up. > > > > > > > > Any opinions on this idea... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc@;dc-resources.net] > > > > Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2
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 way the routing table is, I have messages flowing in a roundabout fashion. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;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 10 connects per association. Are you sure there aren't any looping messages, or a butload of public folder replication traffic? Is there anything in the MTA queue? -- 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 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. > > -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 > > > The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where > I'd start. The > best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if > you have that > handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is > called control > blocks. > > -- > 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.400 issues > > > > > > 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" with "definitely are" > > > > > > -- > > 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 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. > > > > > > -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 > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site > > > > organization, > > > any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 > > > connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in > > > the same site, or > > > deleted before you can delete the connector. > > > > > > > > And, if you delete the dirrep 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 > &g
RE: X.400 issues
No, not really. Should I be overly concerned that I am seeing these errors if all this turns out to be a a bandwidth issue? My concern is that this is the beginning of a larger Exchange issue. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff@;messageone.com] Sent: Monday, 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@;cotelligent.com] > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 2:11 PM > To: 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 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd start. > The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if you > have that handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is > called control blocks. > > -- > 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.400 issues > > > > > > 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" with "definitely are" > > > > > > -- > > 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 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. > > > > > > -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 > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site > > > > organization, > > > any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 > > > connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in > > > the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. > > > > > > > > And, if you delete the dirrep 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: 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 > > > > in > > > Exchange > > > > to clear this up. > > > > > > > > Any opinions on this idea... &g
Re: X.400 issues
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 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 > > > The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd start. The > best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if you have that > handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is called control > blocks. > > -- > 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.400 issues > > > > > > 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" with "definitely are" > > > > > > -- > > 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 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. > > > > > > -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 > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site > > > > organization, > > > any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 > > > connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in > > > the same site, or > > > deleted before you can delete the connector. > > > > > > > > And, if you delete the dirrep 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: 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 in > > > Exchange > > > > to clear this up. > > > > > > > > Any opinions on this idea... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc@;dc-resources.net] > > > > Sent: 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 > >
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 10 connects per association. Are you sure there aren't any looping messages, or a butload of public folder replication traffic? Is there anything in the MTA queue? -- 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 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. > > -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 > > > The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where > I'd start. The > best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if > you have that > handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is > called control > blocks. > > -- > 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.400 issues > > > > > > 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" with "definitely are" > > > > > > -- > > 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 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. > > > > > > -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 > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site > > > > organization, > > > any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 > > > connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in > > > the same site, or > > > deleted before you can delete the connector. > > > > > > > > And, if you delete the dirrep 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: 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 in > > > Exchange > > > > to clear
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@;cotelligent.com] > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 2:11 PM > To: 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 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd start. The > best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if you have > that > handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is called control > blocks. > > -- > 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.400 issues > > > > > > 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" with "definitely are" > > > > > > -- > > 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 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. > > > > > > -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 > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site > > > > organization, > > > any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 > > > connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in > > > the same site, or > > > deleted before you can delete the connector. > > > > > > > > And, if you delete the dirrep 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: 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 in > > > Exchange > > > > to clear this up. > > > > > > > > Any opinions on this idea... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc@;dc-resources.net] > > > > Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > &g
RE: X.400 issues
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 The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if you have that handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is called control blocks. -- 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.400 issues > > > 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" with "definitely are" > > > -- > 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 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. > > > > -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 > > > > > > 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 > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site > > > organization, > > any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 > > connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in > > the same site, or > > deleted before you can delete the connector. > > > > > > And, if you delete the dirrep 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: 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 in > > Exchange > > > to clear this up. > > > > > > Any opinions on this idea... > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc@;dc-resources.net] > > > Sent: 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 on the connection failure > > > > > > In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail > otherwise > > > flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening > > over and over > > > and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to > > > actually > > troubleshoot > > > what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the > > other MTA > > > if > > you > > > have control over it). > > > > > > Precht, do you ever add anything of value? > > >
RE: X.400 issues
The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if you have that handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is called control blocks. -- 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.400 issues > > > 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" with "definitely are" > > > -- > 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 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. > > > > -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 > > > > > > 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 > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site > > > organization, > > any directory replication connectors that depend on those > > X400 connectors > > will have to be either pointed to another connector in the > > same site, or > > deleted before you can delete the connector. > > > > > > And, if you delete the dirrep 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: 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 in > > Exchange > > > to clear this up. > > > > > > Any opinions on this idea... > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc@;dc-resources.net] > > > Sent: 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 on the connection failure > > > > > > In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail > otherwise > > > flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening > > over and over > > > and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to > > > actually > > troubleshoot > > > what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the > > other MTA > > > if > > you > > > have control over it). > > > > > > Precht, do you ever add 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 &g
RE: X.400 issues
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" with "definitely are" -- 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 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. > > -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 > > > 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 > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site > > organization, > any directory replication connectors that depend on those > X400 connectors > will have to be either pointed to another connector in the > same site, or > deleted before you can delete the connector. > > > > And, if you delete the dirrep 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: 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 in > Exchange > > to clear this up. > > > > Any opinions on this idea... > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc@;dc-resources.net] > > Sent: 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 on the connection failure > > > > In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise > > flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening > over and over > > and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to > > actually > troubleshoot > > what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the > other MTA > > if > you > > have control over it). > > > > Precht, do you ever add 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-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.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: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 > Service > > A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 > > 26](12) > > > > Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning > Category: X.400 > > Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was > > refused. The failure reason provider was 0 > > and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM > > KERNEL 25 130](12) > > > > Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type:
RE: X.400 issues
Replace "supposed to be" with "definitely are" -- 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 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. > > -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 > > > 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 > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site > > organization, > any directory replication connectors that depend on those > X400 connectors > will have to be either pointed to another connector in the > same site, or > deleted before you can delete the connector. > > > > And, if you delete the dirrep 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: 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 in > Exchange > > to clear this up. > > > > Any opinions on this idea... > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc@;dc-resources.net] > > Sent: 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 on the connection failure > > > > In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise > > flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening > over and over > > and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to > > actually > troubleshoot > > what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the > other MTA > > if > you > > have control over it). > > > > Precht, do you ever add 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-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.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: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 > Service > > A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 > > 26](12) > > > > Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning > Category: X.400 > > Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was > > refused. The failure reason provider was 0 > > and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM > > KERNEL 25 130](12) > > > > Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: > > Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was > > detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. > > Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) > >
RE: X.400 issues
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 in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc@;dc-resources.net] Sent: 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 on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add 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-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.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: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server 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 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 which constitute a "too long" delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in >8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. > -Original Message- > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > Hello all, > > I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to > get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am > seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. > > Here is my setup: > > I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all > these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. > All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central > EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers > are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a > central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the > remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub > server by full T1 lines. > > My issue is this: > > The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is > written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is > delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes > or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the > surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, > as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a > ma
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. -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 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 Subject: RE: X.400 issues > I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site > organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. > > And, if you delete the dirrep 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: 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 in Exchange > to clear this up. > > Any opinions on this idea... > > > > -Original Message- > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc@;dc-resources.net] > Sent: 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 on the connection failure > > In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise > flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over > and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to > actually troubleshoot > what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA > if you > have control over it). > > Precht, do you ever add 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-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.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: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service > A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 > 26](12) > > Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 > Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was > refused. The failure reason provider was 0 > and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM > KERNEL 25 130](12) > > Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: > Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was > detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. > Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) > > > These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote > server with the same symptoms, the other server 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 > > > 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 which > constitute a "too long" delivery time. > > [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which > routinely resulted in >8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to > Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mai
RE: X.400 issues
So what? I'm running 3MB pipes and I'm still using X400. The results of packet loss and network bursts on RPC communications made me swear off the Site Connectors permanently. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator 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 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, 2002 11:35 AM > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > Cuz Site Connectors stink? > > > > They rarely work well across sub-LAN speed connections. > > > > -- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -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 > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site > > > organization, > > > any directory replication connectors that depend on those > > > X400 connectors > > > will have to be either pointed to another connector in the > > > same site, or > > > deleted before you can delete the connector. > > > > > > > > And, if you delete the dirrep 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: 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 in > > > Exchange > > > > to clear this up. > > > > > > > > Any opinions on this idea... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc@;dc-resources.net] > > > > Sent: 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 on the connection failure > > > > > > > > In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail > > > otherwise flows. > > > > It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and > > > over and the > > > > queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually > > > troubleshoot > > > > what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the > > > other MTA if > > > you > > > > have control over it). > > > > > > > > Precht, do you ever add anything of value? > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions@;entrysecurity.com] > > > > Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions >
Re: X.400 issues
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, 2002 11:35 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues > Cuz Site Connectors stink? > > They rarely work well across sub-LAN speed connections. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -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 > > > > > > 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 > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site > > organization, > > any directory replication connectors that depend on those > > X400 connectors > > will have to be either pointed to another connector in the > > same site, or > > deleted before you can delete the connector. > > > > > > And, if you delete the dirrep 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: 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 in > > Exchange > > > to clear this up. > > > > > > Any opinions on this idea... > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc@;dc-resources.net] > > > Sent: 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 on the connection failure > > > > > > In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail > > otherwise flows. > > > It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and > > over and the > > > queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually > > troubleshoot > > > what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the > > other MTA if > > you > > > have control over it). > > > > > > Precht, do you ever add 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-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.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: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 > > Service > > > A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 > > > 26](12) > > > > > > Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning > > Category: X.400 > > >
RE: X.400 issues
Cuz Site Connectors stink? They rarely work well across sub-LAN speed connections. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -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 > > > 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 > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site > organization, > any directory replication connectors that depend on those > X400 connectors > will have to be either pointed to another connector in the > same site, or > deleted before you can delete the connector. > > > > And, if you delete the dirrep 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: 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 in > Exchange > > to clear this up. > > > > Any opinions on this idea... > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc@;dc-resources.net] > > Sent: 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 on the connection failure > > > > In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail > otherwise flows. > > It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and > over and the > > queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually > troubleshoot > > what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the > other MTA if > you > > have control over it). > > > > Precht, do you ever add 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-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.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: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 > Service > > A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 > > 26](12) > > > > Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning > Category: X.400 > > Service > > A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The > > failure reason provider was 0 > > and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM > > KERNEL 25 130](12) > > > > Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning > Category: Operating > > System > > A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will > > attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. > > [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) > > > > > > These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one > remote server > > with the same symptoms, the other server just produces the > 289 event id > > only. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Josh > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharf
Re: X.400 issues
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 Subject: RE: X.400 issues > I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. > > And, if you delete the dirrep 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: 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 in Exchange > to clear this up. > > Any opinions on this idea... > > > > -Original Message- > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc@;dc-resources.net] > Sent: 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 on the connection failure > > In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. > It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the > queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot > what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you > have control over it). > > Precht, do you ever add 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-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.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: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service > A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 > 26](12) > > Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 > Service > A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The > failure reason provider was 0 > and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM > KERNEL 25 130](12) > > Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating > System > A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will > attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. > [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) > > > These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server > with the same symptoms, the other server 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 > > > 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 which > constitute a "too long" delivery time. > > [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which > routinely resulted in >8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to > Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't > delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Hello all, > > > > I have an incredibl
RE: X.400 issues
I only have 9 connectors, including IMC, on the hub server. I have already
looked into the reg hack that MSKB refers to and it did nothing to relief
the situation.
Thanks,
Josh
-Original Message-
From: Chris Jordan [mailto:Chris.Jordan@;cmg.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 10:25 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 "TCPIP Control Blocks". These are set in the Registry at
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\MSExchangeMTA\Parameter
s\
There are other parameters that may need to be modified at the same time.
Cheers, Chris
-Original Message-
From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com]
Sent: 01 November 2002 16:05
To: 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: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service
A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19
26](12)
Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400
Service
A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The
failure reason provider was 0
and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM
KERNEL 25 130](12)
Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating
System
A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will
attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /.
[BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12)
These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server
with the same symptoms, the other server 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
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 which
constitute a "too long" delivery time.
[1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which
routinely resulted in >8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to
Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't
delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it.
> -Original Message-
> From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
>
> Hello all,
>
> I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to
> get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am
> seeing due to the
> fact that mail is still flowing.
>
> Here is my setup:
>
> I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all
> these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org.
> All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central
> EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers
> are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a
> central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the
> remote servers (scattered across
> the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines.
>
> My issue is this:
>
> The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is
> written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is
> delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes
> or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the
> surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors,
> as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a
> major issue about to explode in my lap?
>
> Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with
> little to no help.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Josh Bennett
> Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer
> Cotelligent, Inc.
> 401 Parkway Drive
> Broomall, PA. 19008
> 610-359-5929
> www.cotelligent.com
>
> _
> List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe:
RE: X.400 issues
I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. And, if you delete the dirrep 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: 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 in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc@;dc-resources.net] Sent: 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 on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add 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-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.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: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server 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 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 which constitute a "too long" delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in >8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. > -Original Message- > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > Hello all, > > I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to > get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am > seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. > > Here is my setup: > > I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all > these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. > All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central > EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers > are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a > central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the > remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub > server by full T1 lines. > > My issue is this:
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 "TCPIP Control Blocks". These are set in the
Registry at
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\MSExchangeMTA\Parameter
s\
There are other parameters that may need to be modified at the same time.
Cheers, Chris
-Original Message-
From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com]
Sent: 01 November 2002 16:05
To: 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: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service
A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19
26](12)
Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400
Service
A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The
failure reason provider was 0
and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM
KERNEL 25 130](12)
Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating
System
A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will
attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /.
[BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12)
These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server
with the same symptoms, the other server 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
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 which
constitute a "too long" delivery time.
[1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which
routinely resulted in >8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to
Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't
delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it.
> -Original Message-
> From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
>
> Hello all,
>
> I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to
> get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am
> seeing due to the
> fact that mail is still flowing.
>
> Here is my setup:
>
> I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all
> these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org.
> All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central
> EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers
> are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a
> central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the
> remote servers (scattered across
> the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines.
>
> My issue is this:
>
> The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is
> written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is
> delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes
> or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the
> surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors,
> as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a
> major issue about to explode in my lap?
>
> Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with
> little to no help.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Josh Bennett
> Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer
> Cotelligent, Inc.
> 401 Parkway Drive
> Broomall, PA. 19008
> 610-359-5929
> www.cotelligent.com
>
> _
> List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com
> 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com
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 in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc@;dc-resources.net] Sent: 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 on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add 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-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.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: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server 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 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 which constitute a "too long" delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in >8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. > -Original Message- > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > Hello all, > > I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to > get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am > seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. > > Here is my setup: > > I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all > these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. > All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central > EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers > are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a > central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the > remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub > server by full T1 lines. > > My issue is this: > > The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is > written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is > delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes > or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the > surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, > as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a > major issue about to explode in my lap? > > Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with > little to no
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 on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add 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-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.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: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server 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 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 which constitute a "too long" delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in >8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. > -Original Message- > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > Hello all, > > I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to > get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am > seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. > > Here is my setup: > > I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all > these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. > All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central > EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers > are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a > central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the > remote servers (scattered across > the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. > > My issue is this: > > The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is > written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is > delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes > or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the > surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, > as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a > major issue about to explode in my lap? > > Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with > little to no help. > > Thanks, > > Josh Bennett > Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer > Cotelligent, Inc. > 401 Parkway Drive > Broomall, PA. 19008 > 610-359-5929 > www.cotelligent.com > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/
RE: X.400 issues
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.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: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server 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 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 which constitute a "too long" delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in >8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. > -Original Message- > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > Hello all, > > I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to > get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am > seeing due to the > fact that mail is still flowing. > > Here is my setup: > > I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all > these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. > All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central > EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers > are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a > central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the > remote servers (scattered across > the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. > > My issue is this: > > The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is > written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is > delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes > or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the > surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, > as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a > major issue about to explode in my lap? > > Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with > little to no help. > > Thanks, > > Josh Bennett > Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer > Cotelligent, Inc. > 401 Parkway Drive > Broomall, PA. 19008 > 610-359-5929 > www.cotelligent.com > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Li
RE: X.400 issues
I am not so sure it is a network issue.I have other Ex servers in different sites on the other end of the same T1 that are fine and do not generate these errors. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse@;hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:04 PM To: Exchange 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 - From: "Bennett, Joshua" <[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 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 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- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, > Joshua > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 6:55 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: X.400 issues > > > Hello all, > > I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to > get a > grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due > to the > fact that mail is still flowing. > > Here is my setup: > > I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all > these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. > All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central > EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers > are BDC's in NT > domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that > all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers > (scattered across > the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. > > My issue is this: > > The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is > written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is > delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes > or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the > surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, > as the mail is being > delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to > explode in my lap? > > Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with > little to > no help. > > Thanks, > > Josh Bennett > Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer > Cotelligent, Inc. > 401 Parkway Drive > Broomall, PA. 19008 > 610-359-5929 > www.cotelligent.com > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 - From: "Bennett, Joshua" <[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 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 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- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 6:55 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: X.400 issues > > > Hello all, > > I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a > grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the > fact that mail is still flowing. > > Here is my setup: > > I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these > servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my > remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server > that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT > domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all > other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across > the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. > > My issue is this: > > The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written > to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered > without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during > the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any > connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being > delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode > in my lap? > > Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to > no help. > > Thanks, > > Josh Bennett > Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer > Cotelligent, Inc. > 401 Parkway Drive > Broomall, PA. 19008 > 610-359-5929 > www.cotelligent.com > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 issues
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 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- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 6:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: X.400 issues Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 issues
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- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 6:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: X.400 issues Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 issues
If you've taken the steps described in Q243632, then the next most likely issue is available bandwidth as mentioned in Q194589. > -Original Message- > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:05 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > 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: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 > Service > A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 > 26](12) > > Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 > Service > A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The > failure reason provider was 0 > and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM > KERNEL 25 130](12) > > Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating > System > A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will > attempt to recover the socketsconnection. Control block index: > /. > [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) > > > These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server > with the same symptoms, the other server 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 > > > 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 > which > constitute a "too long" delivery time. > > [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which > routinely resulted in >8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to > Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail > wasn't > delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Hello all, > > > > I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to > > get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am > > seeing due to the > > fact that mail is still flowing. > > > > Here is my setup: > > > > I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all > > these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. > > All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central > > EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers > > are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a > > central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the > > remote servers (scattered across > > the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. > > > > My issue is this: > > > > The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is > > written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is > > delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes > > or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the > > surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, > > as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a > > major issue about to explode in my lap? > > > > Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with > > little to no help. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Josh Bennett > > Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer > > Cotelligent, Inc. > > 401 Parkway Drive > > Broomall, PA. 19008 > > 610-359-5929 > > www.cotelligent.com > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _
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 returned to normal. Strange thing was that it appeared fine, Terminal services to the remote box didn't bomb and pings were fine [1], although it transpired that the circuit was dropping a hell of a lot of packets. Concentrate on troubleshooting the network, I'd be surprised if it's an Exchange issue [1] Crude I know. <> 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: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 issues
This is all internal. The MSKB articles point to a mis-configured firewall but there are no firewalls involved. Thus why I am so stumped. I've been banging on this for 2 weeks now. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse@;hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 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 PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:24 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues > 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 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 issues > > > > Hello all, > > > > I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem > > to get > a > > grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing > > due to > the > > fact that mail is still flowing. > > > > Here is my setup: > > > > I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all > > these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX > > org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a > > central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the > > spoke servers are BDC's in > NT > > domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that > > all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers > > (scattered > across > > the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. > > > > My issue is this: > > > > The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is > > written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is > > delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 > > minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least > > on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these > > errors, as the mail is > being > > delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to > > explode in my lap? > > > > Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with > > little > to > > no help. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Josh Bennett > > Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer > > Cotelligent, Inc. > > 401 Parkway Drive > > Broomall, PA. 19008 > > 610-359-5929 > > www.cotelligent.com > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server 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 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 which constitute a "too long" delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in >8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. > -Original Message- > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > Hello all, > > I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to > get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am > seeing due to the > fact that mail is still flowing. > > Here is my setup: > > I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all > these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. > All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central > EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers > are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a > central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the > remote servers (scattered across > the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. > > My issue is this: > > The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is > written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is > delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes > or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the > surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, > as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a > major issue about to explode in my lap? > > Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with > little to no help. > > Thanks, > > Josh Bennett > Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer > Cotelligent, Inc. > 401 Parkway Drive > Broomall, PA. 19008 > 610-359-5929 > www.cotelligent.com > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:24 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues > 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 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 issues > > > > Hello all, > > > > I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to > > get > a > > grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due > > to > the > > fact that mail is still flowing. > > > > Here is my setup: > > > > I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all > > these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. > > All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central > > EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers > > are BDC's in > NT > > domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that > > all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers > > (scattered > across > > the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. > > > > My issue is this: > > > > The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is > > written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is > > delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes > > or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the > > surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, > > as the mail is > being > > delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to > > explode in my lap? > > > > Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with > > little > to > > no help. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Josh Bennett > > Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer > > Cotelligent, Inc. > > 401 Parkway Drive > > Broomall, PA. 19008 > > 610-359-5929 > > www.cotelligent.com > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 issues
I do get 57/289/1290/9202 on one of the other remote servers. FYI: these 2 servers that I am having all the issues with are both on the West Coast while the hub is on the East Coast. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 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: RE: X.400 issues 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/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 source and description in addition to the number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which constitute a "too long" delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in >8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. > -Original Message- > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > Hello all, > > I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get > a > grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to > the > fact that mail is still flowing. > > Here is my setup: > > I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these > servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my > remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server > that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in > NT > domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all > other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered > across > the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. > > My issue is this: > > The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written > to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered > without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during > the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any > connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is > being > delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode > in my lap? > > Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little > to > no help. > > Thanks, > > Josh Bennett > Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer > Cotelligent, Inc. > 401 Parkway Drive > Broomall, PA. 19008 > 610-359-5929 > www.cotelligent.com > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: RE: X.400 issues 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/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 issues
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/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 issues
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 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 issues > Hello all, > > I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to > get a > grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due > to the > fact that mail is still flowing. > > Here is my setup: > > I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all > these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. > All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central > EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers > are BDC's in NT > domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that > all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers > (scattered across > the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. > > My issue is this: > > The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is > written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is > delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes > or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the > surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, > as the mail is being > delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to > explode in my lap? > > Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with > little to > no help. > > Thanks, > > Josh Bennett > Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer > Cotelligent, Inc. > 401 Parkway Drive > Broomall, PA. 19008 > 610-359-5929 > www.cotelligent.com > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X.400 issues
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 issues > Hello all, > > I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a > grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the > fact that mail is still flowing. > > Here is my setup: > > I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these > servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my > remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server > that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT > domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all > other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across > the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. > > My issue is this: > > The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written > to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered > without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during > the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any > connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being > delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode > in my lap? > > Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to > no help. > > Thanks, > > Josh Bennett > Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer > Cotelligent, Inc. > 401 Parkway Drive > Broomall, PA. 19008 > 610-359-5929 > www.cotelligent.com > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
X.400 issues
Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MSADC and X.400 addresses
Hi, I have an Exchange 5.5 server that is not part of my organisation and connects my organisation (running W2K and E2K) with the foreign org. through and X.400 connector. I need to add the mailboxes from that Exchange server as contacts into my Active Directory. I was using the MSADC to replicate all mailboxes to an OU in my AD. That worked fine however these contacs have only an SMTP address. I need to have the X.400 addresses since this Exchange 5.5 Gateway uses X.400 to send/receive from the other org and not smtp. Is there a way to have MSADC also replicate the X.400 addresses? Do you know of any inexpensive LDAP Synch tools. LSDU and MMS cost fortunes. regards Uso _ 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: Internal Exchange Name vs. external Internet Address/Name vs. X vs. XX vs. ...
oops. prior commitment. tomorrow or next week (or again next week)? === Andy Webb[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.swinc.com Simpler-Webb, Inc. Austin, TX512-322-0071 === -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy Posted At: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 3:37 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: Internal Exchange Name vs. external Internet Address/Name vs. X vs. XX vs. ... Subject: RE: Internal Exchange Name vs. external Internet Address/Name vs. X vs. XX vs. ... it's a possibility. === Andy Webb[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.swinc.com Simpler-Webb, Inc. Austin, TX512-322-0071 === -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 2:44 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: Internal Exchange Name vs. external Internet Address/Name Subject: RE: Internal Exchange Name vs. external Internet Address/Name Speaking of Austin streets... 1409 Lavaca, Friday at 11:30? _ 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: Internal Exchange Name vs. external Internet Address/Name vs. X vs. XX vs. ...
it's a possibility. === Andy Webb[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.swinc.com Simpler-Webb, Inc. Austin, TX512-322-0071 === -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 2:44 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: Internal Exchange Name vs. external Internet Address/Name Subject: RE: Internal Exchange Name vs. external Internet Address/Name Speaking of Austin streets... 1409 Lavaca, Friday at 11:30? _ 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 Address
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]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 11:08 AM Subject: X.400 Address > I noticed that some of the individuals on my Exchange servers have different > X.400 addresses then other individuals. As of right now my site addressing > is: > > c=US;a= ;p=SWBankTX;o=Corporate;s=lastname;g=firstname > > yes that is a space for the ADMD... > > I have some users that have an X.400 address of: > > c=US;a=SWBankTX;p=SWBankTX;o=Corporate;s=lastname;g=firstname > > The users are on the same server, and it does not SEEM to be causing any > problems. I was wondering if this is something I should be worried about. > Could having different X.400 addresses like this cause any problems? > > We are running Exchange 5.5 PS 4. We currently have 4 Exchange Servers, one > of them being a connector box. The users that have the "different" X.400 > address are not limited to a single server. > > I appreciate any assistance anyone could provide. > > Thanks > > ! Scott Lounder ! > Systems Engineering/1801 Main/3d Floor/Renaissance Tower > Direct 713-232-6201 Cell 281-541-6061 > E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: > > > > The information contained in this ELECTRONIC MAIL transmission > is confidential. It may also be privileged work product or proprietary > information. This information is intended for the exclusive use of the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution [other > than to the addressee(s)], copying or taking of any action because > of this information is strictly prohibited. > > > > _ > 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 Address
I noticed that some of the individuals on my Exchange servers have different X.400 addresses then other individuals. As of right now my site addressing is: c=US;a= ;p=SWBankTX;o=Corporate;s=lastname;g=firstname yes that is a space for the ADMD... I have some users that have an X.400 address of: c=US;a=SWBankTX;p=SWBankTX;o=Corporate;s=lastname;g=firstname The users are on the same server, and it does not SEEM to be causing any problems. I was wondering if this is something I should be worried about. Could having different X.400 addresses like this cause any problems? We are running Exchange 5.5 PS 4. We currently have 4 Exchange Servers, one of them being a connector box. The users that have the "different" X.400 address are not limited to a single server. I appreciate any assistance anyone could provide. Thanks ! Scott Lounder ! Systems Engineering/1801 Main/3d Floor/Renaissance Tower Direct 713-232-6201 Cell 281-541-6061 E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this ELECTRONIC MAIL transmission is confidential. It may also be privileged work product or proprietary information. This information is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution [other than to the addressee(s)], copying or taking of any action because of this information is strictly prohibited. _ 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 filter virus scanning
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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: x.400 filter virus scanning Fello Guru's, Am looking for a solution which will scan for viruses within x.400 protocol. I have looked at Mailsweeper for exchange 2000 and this seems to have the capability. However do not want to upgrade the domain to 2000. Needs to be kept NT and exchange 5.5. Mailsweeper for exchange 5.5 only picks up x.400 which is embedded in smtp. In the passed this large corporation had one of its exchange 5.5 which got infected from within the domain, this then spread via X.400 to all other exchange machines. SMTP are all very well when scanning external mail coming in but I need to have a look at internal filtering. Have had a look at clearswift which seems pretty reputable. Anybody have some input to add. What I should set as main objectives and any thing I should take into consideration. Cheers Mike MCSE _ 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 filter virus scanning
Fello Guru's, Am looking for a solution which will scan for viruses within x.400 protocol. I have looked at Mailsweeper for exchange 2000 and this seems to have the capability. However do not want to upgrade the domain to 2000. Needs to be kept NT and exchange 5.5. Mailsweeper for exchange 5.5 only picks up x.400 which is embedded in smtp. In the passed this large corporation had one of its exchange 5.5 which got infected from within the domain, this then spread via X.400 to all other exchange machines. SMTP are all very well when scanning external mail coming in but I need to have a look at internal filtering. Have had a look at clearswift which seems pretty reputable. Anybody have some input to add. What I should set as main objectives and any thing I should take into consideration. Cheers Mike MCSE _ 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: Address Book & X.400 Connector
Exchange natively supports directory replication only within a site. Between organizations you can try the InterOrg Synch tool, using Microsoft Mail Dirsync (unsupported by Microsoft) or one of at least three third party products, Compaq LDAP Directory Synchronization Utility, Microsoft Metadirectory Server, or SimpleSync. 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 Alan Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 1:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Address Book & X.400 Connector Does anyone know if you can use an X.400 connector to connect 2 exchange servers on different organisations together to share the same Global address book. Also we would also like to use the X.400 connector to transfer calender sharing information, public folders and emails. Does anyone have any further info on this? Cheers. alan. _ 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]
Address Book & X.400 Connector
Does anyone know if you can use an X.400 connector to connect 2 exchange servers on different organisations together to share the same Global address book. Also we would also like to use the X.400 connector to transfer calender sharing information, public folders and emails. Does anyone have any further info on this? Cheers. alan. _ 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...
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: 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]
RE: X.400 problem...
Mark, I've experienced this exact problem which was corrected after upgrading the Exchange SP2 Give this a try. I have not fully read the SP2 fixes but I willing to bet this issue was addressed in SP2. Hope this helps! Ed -Original Message- From: Mark Peoples [mailto:[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 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
RE: X.400 problem...
I can't tell you that it will make any difference at all. What you've already done should be enough. 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 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 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 fo
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 ser
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 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
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] _
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: 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
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...
Did you recalculate routing? 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 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 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 > > ser
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 > > > > > > _ >
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 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...
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...
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]
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]
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...
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]
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...
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]
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]
EXCH 5.5 x.400 to exch 2000 in seperate domain
Im trying to connect a 5.5 exchange server to a 2000 exchange server via x.400 connector. They are in seperate untrusted nt domains. Does anyone know of a helpful article? I can't seem to find one... Thanks, J _ 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 headache
I am trying to get an X.400 connection working between a server in a Exchange 5.5 Org and a Exchange 2000 server in an AD domain - all test environment. I am certain I have something misconfigured as I have the logging turn all the way up and see "connection refused". I have tried matching passwords on both sides, removed the passwords. I can't find anything on Technet or the Knowledge base for any of the event IDs I'm getting. Can anyone point me to some trouble shooting documentation? Thanks Ken Jasa Messaging Administrator Weber Shandwick [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]
