Title: Message
Hi
all...
We updated the
IMail 7.06 or 7.07 yesterday and it went smoothly with no problems. It
appears that our web messaging problem is taken care of.
Before this patch
we had to reboot our server everyday. So far we have not seen any problems
on day 2 of no rebooting.
Here's the latest about IPSwitch's stand on external database not
responding. I'll keep you posted.
Trent
---
Trent M. Davenport - Systems Administrator
Northern Television Systems Ltd - WHTV
203-4103 4th Avenue, Whitehorse, YT Y1A 1H6
(867) 393-2225 X204, (867) 393-2224 FAX
Are you using peering or a gateway? That might account for why IMail
would accept the mail
before bouncing it.
I just doublechecked. I do not have the Gateway options , send all
remote mail through Gateway checked, although the address of my mail
server is in the remote mail gateway host box.
I've used http://support.ipswitch.com/kb/IM-19980513-ES01.htm to find out
which ports are used by IMail.
It says the Pserver (password server) uses port 106. I wonder, is this
actually needed? I only run pop3
and smtp at the moment, so I figure I don't have to supply the ports used by
Guys ,
anyone know if its possible to get IIS and Imail running on the same server?
What's going on is this ...
NT server single IP ,...start Imail web services , Imail uses that IP.
Go into advanced options of TCP/IP in network control panel , configure
second IP .
Imail grabs that one as
Any way to tell Imail to only use one IP address , thus leaving
the others
free for other services (like IIS) ?
Nope, sorry. You'll need to run IIS and IMail web messaging on different
ports.
Ron Hornbaker
Humankind Systems, Inc. - Ipswitch Premier Partner
- Come say hello to us next
Hello All.
We are running IMail 6.06. One of my customers has found a peculiar error
with web messaging.
On his laptop using IE 6.0 with all patches, if I connect through dial-up
from his house (about 26kbps) then I cannot delete message from the web
interface. I get no error message, I
In the registry, the subkeys listed under the
/HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SOFTWARE/Ipswitch/IMail/Domains/ includes both the
actual domains (IP address or virtual) and those with string names
mapped to them. Is there a way to list those with the string names
only?
If you take out any entries there
At 06:08 PM 4/17/2002 +0100, you wrote:
anyone know if its possible to get IIS and Imail running on the same server?
Yes, we used to have it running that way for a while. WinNT 4.0 SP6a IIS
4.0, and IMail 6.x. Worked fine both on one machine, default installs and
one NIC.
Any way to tell
I have a support case open for item number 2. IPSWITCH tech support does not
know what the problem is. I have had the user change the Edit message
before forwarding setting and all is fine now with her forwarding.
Does anyone know how to change the setting for all users. Or where this
setting
Hello all,
I've just installed two new webservers and started using IMail7 (and how I
love it already).
At the moment I'm trying to figure out all ports used by critical services
on the system, so
I can rule out the rest of the tcp and udp ports in tcp/ip filtering.
I've used
I would recommend unchecking
the Send all mail through gateway option.
-Scott
I didn't have that checked. But, the IP address of my mail server was in
the gateway host box. I just removed it. Seeing as I didn't have the
send all mail through
Paul,
Guys , anyone know if its possible to get IIS and Imail running on
the same server?
Absolutely, positively (and on the same port, obviously).
Any way to tell Imail to only use one IP address , thus leaving the
others free for other services (like IIS) ?
Please follow my
You don't need to be scared. It's the equivalent of opening up your
real
mailbox one day at a house, and finding 100 junk mails, addressed to
Occupant - 1234 Main St. Apt #1, Occupant - 1234 Main St. Apt #2,
...
Occupant - 1234 Main St. Apt #100.
Ok..I have spent most of my day on this and
Any way to tell Imail to only use one IP address , thus
leaving the others
free for other services (like IIS) ?
Nope. See this article:
http://support.ipswitch.com/kb/IM-19990614-DM07.htm
The 7.07 announcement says:
SMTP32 properly binds to IP
Does that change this info at all?
Thanks Scott, I might just do that.
But, after reading your suggestion, I went ahead and created a fake
domain mymail.com1 using IMail Admin (not that this will ever be valid
in real life) to see how IMail Admin handles it. It recognizes it fine,
which makes me wonder, how do you suppose
Well, i've tried it out, listed UDP and TCP ports 53, but still when I test
it,
only the simple dns test works and the recursive doesn't...
Now, I've read something about RPC using a random port for some services
that
might be the cause of all this, but I'm not quite sure about it...
Any more
But, after reading your suggestion, I went ahead and created a fake
domain mymail.com1 using IMail Admin (not that this will ever be valid
in real life) to see how IMail Admin handles it. It recognizes it fine,
which makes me wonder, how do you suppose IMail Admin is doing it?
The trick of
Well, i've tried it out, listed UDP and TCP ports 53, but still when I test
it, only the simple dns test works and the recursive doesn't...
DNS only uses port 53 (UDP and/or TCP), so the problem should lie somewhere
else (*assuming* that port 53 really is unblocked).
It may be that the DNS
Search the archives. Been a problem for a bunch of us. Some people seem to
have it, others don't. We can't seem to narrow down why, or under what
conditions.
Trent
---
Trent M. Davenport - Systems Administrator
Northern Television Systems Ltd - WHTV
203-4103 4th Avenue, Whitehorse, YT
Any way to tell Imail to only use one IP address , thus
leaving the others
free for other services (like IIS) ?
Nope. See this article:
http://support.ipswitch.com/kb/IM-19990614-DM07.htm
The 7.07 announcement says:
SMTP32 properly binds to IP
Does that change this
What is the best way to combat email harvesters?
We are getting over 50,000 attempts a day at sending mail to random account
names, probably for harvesting.
Thanks,
Jim
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is
If you are using W2K you can config IIS so that if the url is www.somewhere.dot it
runs on the http port and if it's mail.somewhere.dot it will redirect to imail's web
port and run imail web mail. It works great.
We do this for both mail and the calendar, no problems with it at all.
On
Notice for anyone who ran the install for 7.07 already. An extra registry
key was updated during the installation. You can re-download the patch and
run it and the key will be fixed or you can just delete the registry entry
directly. The value to remove is located under the key
Is it possible for a user to just upload a
rules.ima into his main users directory in order for that to take effect in all
of his subsequent users' directories? What I mean is this, say a user just wants
to upload a file that has all of his subject based filters in it, that will
delete
well this is crap. Does this mean that if in the future i decide to run
mixed mode databases, ie: some built in some external, that it might or
might not work?
Rick
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Korsak
Sent: Wednesday, April 17,
It will work just fine, just delete that one registry key or re-run the
patch.
John Korsak
- Original Message -
From: Rick Leske [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 4:08 PM
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] IMail Server 7.07
well this is crap. Does this
This was a HUGE problem with us as well. I got tired of blocking the
specfiic IP's at the FW, so we signed up with a service called POSTINI. The
block Harvesting (dictionary attacks), spam, and viruses. All of the levels
are configurable via web interface, and the users can also set their
Paul,
We run IIS 5 and IMail 7.0x on the same box without any problems.
But IMail does not use port 80 or 443 which IIS uses, so there are no
conflicts.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of paul
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 1:08
Some day we might see this one
Trent
---
Trent M. Davenport - Systems Administrator
Northern Television Systems Ltd - WHTV
203-4103 4th Avenue, Whitehorse, YT Y1A 1H6
(867) 393-2225 X204, (867) 393-2224 FAX
www.whtvcable.com http://www.whtvcable.com (
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL
wow, sounds like a sales pitch to me... just kidding...
we looked into that before and into brightmail, but we really like to manage
things locally.
is imgate something that would help for this?
jim
- Original Message -
From: Jason Newland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
Imgate should work fine to fix this, we just didn't want to install another
box, and have to maintain that as well so we went with the Postini service.
Regards,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: Jim Jones, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 4:19
Is it possible to send email from a virtual host or do you have to set up a
separate server? This is all new to me. I just got the virtual host set up
and can receive email just fine. Thanks.
Anna R. Buse
Systems Administrator
Pacific Foods of Oregon
(503-692-9666 ext 1115)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, i've tried it out, listed UDP and TCP ports 53, but still
when I test
it, only the simple dns test works and the recursive doesn't...
DNS only uses port 53 (UDP and/or TCP), so the problem should lie
somewhere
else (*assuming* that port 53 really is unblocked).
It may
I don't know about the first question.
About the second one: you can specify an alias 'nobody' which
will send all unknown email of that domain
to your specified address. I let all nobody aliases forward to my
central root account just to keep things clear.
Hope this helps!
Tim van
Well, i've tried it out, listed UDP and TCP ports 53, but still
when I test
it, only the simple dns test works and the recursive doesn't...
DNS only uses port 53 (UDP and/or TCP), so the problem should lie
somewhere
else (*assuming* that port 53 really is unblocked).
I don't know about the first question.
About the second one: you can specify an alias 'nobody' which will send all
unknown email of that domain
to your specified address. I let all nobody aliases forward to my central
root account just to keep things clear.
Hope this helps!
Tim van den Hoff
Well, i've tried it out, listed UDP and TCP ports 53, but still
when I test
it, only the simple dns test works and the recursive doesn't...
DNS only uses port 53 (UDP and/or TCP), so the problem should lie
somewhere
else (*assuming* that port 53 really is unblocked).
It may be that the
When I don't use tcp/ip filtering the DNS test fully functions, if I use it
and list port 53 tcp and udp it doesn't...
Are you allowing both incoming and outgoing port 53 packets?
If you are using Windows 2000, you may need to set it up to permit all UDP
packets. I tried setting up the
Have you considered using a management package of some sort? We use
rodopi and it does all of this for us and the accounting stuff (sorry,
failed that class along time ago, so I'm not a very good source for
information on it). The system automatically bills credit cards and puts
any
Dollar for dollar, I wonder if this is a better way to go than using Declude
or Imgate.
Kevin Childers
,
õ¿õ¬}
~'
Customer Support Desk
(910) 486-7845 / (888) 228-0312
Fayetteville Internet Communications
APCNet - FayNet - NetQuick - QuickWAN
The Carolinas' Fastest Internet Communications
I currently have the same issue with 2 out of 300 users. I too am
running IMail 6.06 on W2K server. We can delete mail fine on the
server, but not via the web interface (using KillerWeb app.) Our
users are on our network (100) and the server is in our DMZ with a
T1 connection, so speed
Virtual host functionally can do everything an IPed host does. The only
noticeable difference is that with virtual host you have to specify the full
email address for logging in. If you've followed the set-up directions
correctly and your DNS is squared away, you should be good to go.
You're absolutely right! This does do the trick.
Only question left (at least regarding this topic) what possible security
'leaks' do I create, by leaving all UDP ports open?
Do you know?
Tim van den Hoff
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
Best of all, it isn't very expensive, and it has cut down on about 40% of
our traffic to the mail server!
I dunno, they don't list prices on their site... looks expensive too me...
~Brad
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jason Newland
At .30 per user per month, and no worries, I think it is. Besides, the
Declude product had a few issues (notifications not being sent, etc.).
Also, all of the add-ons couldn't cut down the bandwidth wasted, wasted
cpu utilization, or wasted man hours maintaining them.
Jason
AreaTech
You're absolutely right! This does do the trick.
Only question left (at least regarding this topic) what possible security
'leaks' do I create, by leaving all UDP ports open?
That depends on what UDP ports your server may have open (and whether or
not the UDP packets would get blocked
At .30 per user per month, and no worries, I think it is.
Let's see, for an ISP with 1,000 users, at $3.60/year each that would be
$3,600/year. That's even more expensive than IMail AntiVirus. :)
Besides, the Declude product had a few issues (notifications not being
sent, etc.).
The only
Tim,
Does this mean to simply make an account called nobody then have the
nobody account forward all its' mail to the root account? How will
imail know that invalid non user accounts 505/504 be sent to the nobody
account?
Thanks,
Rick
Tim van den Hoff wrote:
I don't know about the first
Yup, truth in numbers.. truth in numbers.
Rick
R. Scott Perry wrote:
At .30 per user per month, and no worries, I think it is.
Let's see, for an ISP with 1,000 users, at $3.60/year each that would be
$3,600/year. That's even more expensive than IMail AntiVirus. :)
Besides, the
That's what the nobody account does. It's special, in a reserved keyword
kinda way.
~Brad
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rick Leske
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 6:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Rules.
Tim,
Let's see, for an ISP with 1,000 users, at $3.60/year each that would
be
$3,600/year. That's even more expensive than IMail AntiVirus. :)
That is cheap if you factor in the man hours spent maintaining in house
systems, the cost of the systems themselves, and the wasted bandwidth!
Plus it
52 matches
Mail list logo
