Something must have happened between last night and this morning because it stopped working. So: Along with foo.com, under IP Addresses I set pop3.foo.com to the static IP. under IP Addresses I set smpt.foo.com to the static IP.
I mention this so someone searching in the future will have better information. Domains: I wouldn't call them "domains" either. The page on ZoneEdit just uses that term so I just copied it. Good point, though. NH-Tom Thanks Jerry! With your help I got it working. Here are the missing pieces: First, as you suggested, I had to poke a few holes in the firewall for the ports. The router also needed to be adjusted. Then the DNS needed to be reworked. I don't have much experience with domain name servers so I'm making this ZoneEdit centric: Under IP Addresses I set foo.com to the static IP. Then, under mail servers, I set "foo.com handles 1st for domain pop3.foo.com" and "foo.com handles 1st for domain smtp.foo.com" Now, for Outlook's "Incoming mail server" I can put "pop3.foo.com" and for "Outgoing mail server" I can put "smtp.foo.com." I COULD HAVE SET ONLY ONE "DOMAIN" LIKE MAIL.FOO.COM AND USED THAT FOR BOTH. I just wanted to be a little more fancy. RE: Ethereal. I was wondering what was out there for a software "Sniffer." Thanks! nh-tom Jerry M wrote: > > First thought might be a firewall. How is the server attached to the > internet? Is it on a leased server, co-located, etc? or is it on a > machine connected through a home/office router and roadrunner/dsl, etc? > If you're going through a router, they most often double as a firewall, > and you have to configure them to open up ports 110 and 25. > > BTW... I suspect outlook's use of the word 'server' is rather loose. I > believe it is saying that the IP address exists (responds to a ping), > not that it actually found a server service running on port 25 of that > IP address. > > Otherwise, it gets a little more difficult to diagnose. If you are > really brave, you can download Ethereal which is a packet trace > program. You can see absolutely everything that comes across the wire. > But it is non-trivial to read. If you look at the trace and do not see > the smtp and pop requests, then the problem is upstream. if you do see > the pop and smtp requests in the trace, then it's most likely something > in JAMES that isn't correct. > > Maybe there's another way to isolate what is happening that's not as > involved as Ethereal. But Ethereal is the way I've debugged similar > problems in the past. > > Jerry > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%22Now-Kiddies...%22--Rank-amateur-questions...-tp15127459p15160379.html Sent from the James - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
