Hello List
I have set up peering (as per the instructions) between my Imail and
Exchange servers. I have pointed the Exchange SMTP connector at the Imail
server. Created MX and A records in the DNS and edited the hosts files to
point at each other.
Results:
I can send mail from an Exchange
Imail 8.14
I have set up an exchange server on our domain, I have pointed the exchange
smtp connector at our Imail box and also setup an Outlook client to connect
to the Exchange server.
The Outlook client can send but not receive mail.
Mail intended for the Outlook client is being received by
]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Moore
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 3:36 AM
To: Imail List
Subject: [IMail Forum] Peering with exchange
Imail 8.14
I have set up an exchange server on our domain, I have
pointed
The Knowledgebase tells all!!
http://support.ipswitch.com/kb/IM-20031209-DM01.htm
Eric S
- Original Message -
From: Chris Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Imail List imail_forum@list.ipswitch.com
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 3:35 AM
Subject: [IMail Forum] Peering with exchange
with that.
Cheers - Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Shanbrom
Sent: 14 September 2006 14:37
To: Imail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Peering with exchange
The Knowledgebase tells all!!
http://support.ipswitch.com/kb/IM
Any help greatly appreciated.
Search the archives for 'exchange2aliases.'
--Sandy
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist
Broadleaf Systems, a division of
Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc.
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SpamAssassin plugs into Declude!
I saw the section in the manual regarding peering. Does anyone use that
capability? It looks like it would help in multi-site organizations.
adamc
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Forum] peering
Adam Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I saw the section in the manual regarding peering. Does anyone use that
capability? It looks like it would help in multi-site organizations.
adamc
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
List Archive: http://www.mail
]
Subject: [IMail Forum] Peering with Exchange 2003
Anyone have any experience peering an IMail 8.12 server with an Exchange
2003 server? I would like to keep the functions of the list server of IMail
while using Declude to scrub mail that comes in.
I am hoping that I can get IMail to pass all mail
If I remember correctly on 8/13/04 6:05 AM Sean Kenworthy wrote:
You can Peer with exchange if you have 8.04 or later. Here is the KB article
on it.
http://support.ipswitch.com/kb/IM-20031209-DM01.htm
Should be should be able to. I followed the set up exactly and got no
love. Looking into
If I remember correctly on 8/12/04 6:04 PM H Jones wrote:
You aren't going to peer an Exchange box with an IMail box. IMail
relies on the X1 at the end of the SMTP banner for peering. From what
I'm reading, it sounds like you just want IMail as a front end to do
spam and av filtering, in
If I remember correctly on 8/12/04 6:10 PM Sanford Whiteman wrote:
Then there's no reason to actually have any local mailboxes on
IMail--just a virtual host with the program aliases necessary for
lists, and user aliases for your Exchange users on the other box.
And you turn
the ability to do VRFY or RCPT TO to determine if the user exists on the
server.
Eric S
- Original Message -
From: Don Wolff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Peering with Exchange 2003
If I remember correctly on 8/12/04
Thanks Sandy. I am researching this right now. Is there other
documentation for the script other than the readme? Maybe on a
website?
Er, no. But feel free to post questions here to my attention.
Let me state again that, despite the suggestions regarding peering and
...it sounds like you just want IMail as a front end to do spam and
av filtering, in which case you just wanna set IMail as a store and
foreward server...
Theoretically, yes. But blind ('nobody') store-and-forward is fast
growing obsolete. Without the ability to reject unknown users at
Anyone have any experience peering an IMail 8.12 server with an Exchange
2003 server? I would like to keep the functions of the list server of IMail
while using Declude to scrub mail that comes in.
I am hoping that I can get IMail to pass all mail that comes in to my domain
to get scrubbed in
Don Wolff wrote:
Anyone have any experience peering an IMail 8.12 server with an Exchange
2003 server? I would like to keep the functions of the list server of IMail
while using Declude to scrub mail that comes in.
I am hoping that I can get IMail to pass all mail that comes in to my domain
to get
Anyone have any experience peering an IMail 8.12 server with an
Exchange 2003 server?
Yep. But you don't want peering.
I would like to keep the functions of the list server of IMail while
using Declude to scrub mail that comes in.
Then there's no reason to actually have any
Title: Peering with MS Exchange 5.5
We have Imail Pro 8 (patched to 8.05) and I am attempting to get peering to work with an existing MS Exchange 5.5 mail server.
I have everything setup according to the instructions for peering with Exchange found in the ipswitch knowledge base (link:
Title: Peering with MS Exchange 5.5 (maybe I'll actually send the text this time)
We have Imail Pro 8 (patched to 8.05) and I am attempting to get peering to work with an existing MS Exchange 5.5 mail server.
I have everything setup according to the instructions for peering with Exchange
: [IMail Forum] peering solution
I have about the same processing power, but I run a very hefty custom
Declude/Sniffer setup with two virus scanners, a full Web hosting
environment and am operating on RAID 5 with 4 active Cheetahs and double
the RAM. This server was optimized for reliability
1 HD, 2 partitions, c:=system win2k and d:=Imail data+spool
bad partition design. see list archives.
*- HD indexing service enabled.
turn it off
Drive C: fragmentation = 8%, D: fragmentation = 57%
disastrous
Len
_
Title: Message
Hi
all.
My server just can't
handle any more domains. Cpu load is over 90%.
I was going to
implement another independant server when I read something about peering servers
in the Imail K.B.
Does this solution
work OK in the real world? Are any of you guys using it? I mean,
My server just can't handle any more domains. Cpu load is over 90%.
It shouldn't be, unless you have an extremely high load (200,000+ of
E-mails/day) or are running an old server.
What is using up the high CPU time?
While peering or load balancing may be necessary, there is most likely
I still have a lot of doubts about this.
Some will say that you _should_ have a lot of doubt and should never
use peering. I know from experience that peering is fully appropriate
for a couple of situations, though in all other situations it will be
grossly wrong. If you don't know how
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: segunda-feira, 8 de março de 2004 13:43
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] peering solution
My server just can't handle any more domains. Cpu load is over 90%.
It shouldn't be, unless you have an extremely high load (200,000+ of
E-mails/day
Our server has the following caracteristics
PIII 1.13 ghz Dual processor
Imail average daily flow:
70,000 (4gb) messages in
20,000 (2gb)messages out
Top cpu consumers in consumption order.
1. Queue manager
2. SMTP
3. Webmessaging
Server only runs Imail, No external Anti-spam nor Anti-Virus.
Do you have large rules files for any of the domains?
Tripp
- Original Message -
From: Rudy Pieruccini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 3:57 PM
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] peering solution
HI Scott.
Our server has the following caracteristics
I have about the same processing power, but I run a very hefty custom
Declude/Sniffer setup with two virus scanners, a full Web hosting
environment and am operating on RAID 5 with 4 active Cheetahs and double
the RAM. This server was optimized for reliability and not speed, but
it could
HD 36gb scsi (Seagate st336706LW SCSI)
I would never try to push that traffic through a single, uncached
drive.
Take constant contention for the disk channel from multiple daemons
and threads, add in fragmentation, and you've got a recipe for high
CPU. It's not only distinctly
: Re: [IMail Forum] peering solution
Do you have large rules files for any of the domains?
Tripp
- Original Message -
From: Rudy Pieruccini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 3:57 PM
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] peering solution
HI Scott.
Our server has
MX Records:
IN MX 1 imail.duda.com
IN MX 10 exchange1.duda.com
Say mx 1 is down, Exchange is set up as backup MX for Imail's domains?
service on the exchange server and restarted the services on Imail. At the
moment there is only one user in my exchange store. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
if you telnet
Here is my situation:
Symantec Antivirus Gateway 2.01 receives mail from the world at our DMZ.
63.119.95.133. It then relays all mail to Imail 8.01 for the duda.com
(10.1.1.15), viera.com (10.1.1.16), and lists.duda.com (10.1.2.15) domains.
I now have an exchange 2000 server sitting behind the
the accounts had been migrated to the new servers, we noticed that we were
seeing a lot of duplication in emails active SMTP delivery threads since
messages were being duplicated roughly half of the time.
Duped messages is a not feature of peering. What was causing your dupes?
This is
Duped messages is a not feature of peering. What was causing your dupes?
Sorry... rephrase message received by server1. Relayed to server 2.
Traffic for the transmission of the message is duplicated via relay, the
actual message isn't duplicated. In terms of network utilization, the
server.
4)forwarding all jvcdiscusa.com mail to jvcmedia.com
what do you think ?
Cris Porter
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Len Conrad
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 5:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [IMail Forum
So Imail SMTP send all outbound through gateway routing does override
peering routing?
This would happen if both servers must use a gateway server for antivirus or
SPAM filtering by relaying all mail to gateway. Yes... this does override
peering.
great, then using IMGate in conjunction with
I was planning on
1)backing up jvcmedia.com, deleting, and re-adding with an IP address;
huh?
2)adding a jvcmedia.com host on atlmail.
3)setting up a second MX record for jvcmedia.com pointed to the 2nd server.
4)forwarding all jvcdiscusa.com mail to jvcmedia.com
what do you think ?
setup two
]
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Peering
Everything else seems to be fine. Keep in mind that as you add the number
of nodes, you add to the likelihood that a server will have to lookup and
forward the email to another server.
You can cheat on IMail's MX for peering. If you have a significant
We use peering, but with the high volume of incoming mail that these servers
receive, they couldn't keep up and forward mail to each other.
as I predicted, scaleability inability
We resorted
to using a linux server as a gateway running qmail.
right idea, wrong MTA! :))
The accounts are split
We use peering, but with the high volume of incoming mail that these servers
receive, they couldn't keep up and forward mail to each other.
That's why/where you use a bridgehead peer as your MX whose only
function is to route incoming mail from the outside.
The feasibility of peering
This would happen if both servers must use a gateway server for antivirus
or
SPAM filtering by relaying all mail to gateway. Yes... this does override
peering.
great, then using IMGate in conjunction with Imail peering would work, and
therefore all re-delivery disappears. NOW we have
redundant gateways (RR DNS).
Thanks,
Chuck Frolick
ArgoNet, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Len Conrad
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 12:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Peering
We use peering, but with the high
: Shad Pulley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 12:54 PM
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Peering
We use peering, but with the high volume of incoming mail that these servers
receive, they couldn't keep up and forward mail to each other. We resorted
to using a linux
VRFYs would still be required by IMail peers to resolve the correct
server before forwarding to IMGate. The only way to reduce chatty
VRFYs with several IMail peers is to actually replace the IPs of all
those peers with an IP or two for IMGate as the peer (two IMGate IPs
in case one
VRFYs would still be required by IMail peers to resolve the correct server
before forwarding to IMGate.
no. An Imail local user on peerA creates a message for a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on PeerB. Imail relays the msg to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to IMGate (imail does not need to rewrite the
@domain part),
What are you using to send the Imail lists to IMGate?
An IMail user has written some nice tools to do just that.
Does it do it on
a schedule or automatically?
you put his user export tool in a batch file along with blat to email the
file to IMGate, and schedule it like any other periodic task.
The bridgehead box(es) can be running IMail, IMGate, MS SMTP, qmail,
whatever. IMail can't do what IMGate can for anti-spam, but it can
perform this role very well (especially IMail 8).
but you have to buy IMail + Windows Server licenses ( = $2000?) for the
Imail routing hubs, IMGate is
but you have to buy IMail + Windows Server licenses ( = $2000?) for
the Imail routing hubs, IMGate is free.
True enough. It's just a matter of comfort level. Someone with
*nix-based MXs would probably lean toward *nix-based hubs, and vice
versa.
-Sandy
as
undeliverable ?
Cris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Len Conrad
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 10:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Peering
I was planning on
1)backing up jvcmedia.com, deleting, and re-adding
VRFYs would still be required by IMail peers to resolve the correct server
before forwarding to IMGate.
no. An Imail local user on peerA creates a message for a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on PeerB. Imail relays the msg to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to IMGate (imail does not need to rewrite the
@domain
I have been unable to persuade the suits to allow *nix in the building
(for purely non-technical/non-financial reasons), so imgate is out for
the time being.
Not sure if this is even worth your time to try, but thought you may be
interested [0]. This is Postfix on Win32 platform. Still in its
Len, maybe I'm missing something. If you have IMail peering enabled, it will
always check its peer list first using VRFY,
agreed, we can't turn that off.
prior to sending to the default
gateway (even if you have send all remote mail through gateway enabled).
Before the server sends the
- Original Message -
From: Cris Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:45 PM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Peering
I have been unable to persuade the suits to allow *nix in the building
(for purely non-technical/non-financial reasons), so imgate
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Len Conrad
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 4:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Peering
Len, maybe I'm missing something. If you have IMail peering enabled,
it will
always check its peer list first using VRFY,
agreed, we can't turn that off
The only solution that comes to mind is to have a routing host with vrfy
on behind the MX boxes, i.e. minimum of five servers, two IMGate MX, one
IMGate routing
yep that would work but the IMGate/VRFY box sounds like a single point of
failure
Len
(Lists)
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 2:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Peering
I have been unable to persuade the suits to allow *nix in the building
(for purely non-technical/non-financial reasons), so imgate is out for
the time being.
Not sure if this is even
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Len Conrad
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 4:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Peering
The only solution that comes to mind is to have a routing host with
vrfy
on behind the MX boxes, i.e. minimum of five servers, two IMGate MX,
one
IMGate routing
Of Ives Stoddard
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Peering
IMail should attempt message delivery as retries.
In your environment I don't think you'll have any problems, provided you
don't
have any issues with WAN bandwidth.
The only
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Peering
How many peers are you running, and are you forwarding to the linux boxes
send all remote mail through gateway?
If you're running peering, would the linux box be the 3rd box, or are you
adding additional IMail linux boxes for a 3rd partition of users
Len, maybe I'm missing something. If you have IMail peering enabled, it
will
always check its peer list first using VRFY,
agreed, we can't turn that off.
Hmmm... I thought there would be an issue if you turned off peering, but
apparently it attempts to deliver to the gateway if the user
Hmmm... I thought there would be an issue if you turned off peering, but
apparently it attempts to deliver to the gateway if the user isn't found on
the local server, regardless of peering or not. Peering can be eliminated
entirely. I wasn't aware of that.
No, can't turn off peering. How will
The IMail peer list just tells it which server to inquire with
VRFY. There's no reason why any other server couldn't respond to
that request...
Actually, there is a minor reason...
ok, good, then all the Imail peers could be told their only peer is the IP
of IMGate.
...the
+0200
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]@mail.go2france.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:27:55 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Len Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Peering
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Is anyone running I-mail Peering ?
Any issues ?
Cris Porter
JVC America
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Knowledge Base/FAQ:
One minor issue here - the SMTP command VRFY must be enabled.
Otherwise, it is working ok for us.
- Original Message -
From: Cris Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 1:57 PM
Subject: [IMail Forum] Peering
Is anyone running I-mail Peering
I run a 6 peer setup, each server is in a different state. works great!
Rick Davidson
Buckeye Internet Inc
www.buckeyeweb.com
440-953-1900 ext: 222
- Original Message -
From: Cris Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 4:57 PM
Subject: [IMail Forum
Is anyone running I-mail Peering?
Many clients, many servers. It's an overlooked feature that can be
very useful in some environments (search the archives for some
comments on ideal/non-ideal situations), and feel free to describe
yours to get some comments.
Any issues?
It's
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 4:57 PM
Subject: [IMail Forum] Peering
Is anyone running I-mail Peering ?
Any issues ?
Cris Porter
JVC America
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
1) Ipswitch will not support NIC teaming, particularly with
Peering...
Strange, I've never had a prob with this (3com and Intel teaming
drivers).
Keep in mind that as you add the number of nodes, you add to the
likelihood that a server will have to lookup and forward the
Everything else seems to be fine. Keep in mind that as you add the number
of nodes, you add to the likelihood that a server will have to lookup and
forward the email to another server.
You can cheat on IMail's MX for peering. If you have a significant
differences in mail traffic into each
,
Ives
- Original Message -
From: Sanford Whiteman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ives Stoddard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:59 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Peering
1) Ipswitch will not support NIC teaming, particularly with
Peering...
Strange, I've never
Any one know if I need to purchase the same license for my peering server
ie: 1000 for the primary and 25 for the peering ( just for backup).
Thanks,
Eric Hébert
Intrasoft Solutions Int'l
T:(450)581-2297
F:(450)581-3815
Web: www.intrasoft.net
To Unsubscribe:
Any one know if I need to purchase the same license for my peering server
ie: 1000 for the primary and 25 for the peering ( just for backup).
The server is licensed by the number of user mailboxes located on the
box. Are you sure you know how peering works? It's not simply a
It would be more like backup mail spooler
Eric Hébert
Intrasoft Solutions Int'l
Web: www.intrasoft.net
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford Whiteman
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 5:55 PM
To: Eric Hébert
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum
It would be more like backup mail spooler
If it is a Backup MX you are looking for, you can always use IIS for that.
John Tolmachoff MCSE, CSSA
IT Manager, Network Engineer
RelianceSoft, Inc.
Fullerton, CA 92835
www.reliancesoft.com
To Unsubscribe:
It would be more like backup mail spooler
In that case, I believe 25-user is allowed. But that's not peering,
FTR.
-Sandy
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist
Broadleaf Systems, a division of
Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc.
e-mail: [EMAIL
Does anyone have experience setting up Peering within Imail? I've
looked at the documentation, and I'm a little confused about the
alias requirementThe way the documentation reads, is that you
can only have the main host as the alias for the peering domains.
Len has already
Does anyone have experience setting up Peering within Imail?
I've looked at the documentation, and I'm a little confused about the alias
requirement.
The way the documentation reads, is that you can only have the main host as the
alias for the peering domains.
I have two aliases that I need
More importantly, does peering work well? And what are the noticeable
benefits?
Please check the mail list archives and KB for peering.
IMail peering is nothing more that enhanced MX routing for inbound SMTP
delivery.
For user mailbox access, each user still has to be told on which specific
Gotcha.
Thanks Len.
We were hoping that it could serve as a pseudo load balancer and redirect requests to
the other box as needed.
If we have to tell different users different addresses to use for webmail or pop, it
just wont work for us.
Thanks.
b
-- Original Message
Thanks Len.
We were hoping that it could serve as a pseudo load balancer
it's not
and redirect requests to the other box as needed.
it doesn't do that, Imail peering re-routes inbound SMTP traffic to the
peer with the recipient's mailbox.
Peering is actually an (SMTP) load increaser, and it
If I have several domains using individual IP address's. Do I need to have
each domain set to peer to a corresponding domain on the other server.
Or is it the server IP itself that is the peering IP?
ex.
mailserver1 IP = 208.200.xxx.10
mailserver2 IP = 208.100.xxx.10
mail.domain1.com =
If I have several domains using individual IP address's. Do I need
to have each domain set to peer to a corresponding domain on the
other server.
Not exactly. Each domain has to be set to a single IP of the other
server. You can still deliver to any local domain through a
Is it possible that if the peer system was not available to respond
to a VRFY command for 20 minutes or so that the server would reject
the mail as a invalid user.
Absolutely. It only gets one chance to fail.
I am trying to setup these 2 servers to peer is because the mail
system that
Title: Message
Imail
users,
We have peering
setup between 2 systems. Both are correctly configured and have SMTP VRFY
enabled. Everything worked fine for about 10 hours when for some unknown
reason one of the systems stopped doing verifies for mail that was not
local. It just started
Is it possible that the system perceived all of the verify requests
as a possible hack attempt and denied them?
Not according to the (documented) functionality of Auto-deny possible
hack attempts. I have set up peering successfully for a few clients
and it's held up well.
When you try
monitor this would appear to be what has happened.
Thanks,
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Sanford
Whiteman
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 2:24 PM
To: Jeff Madison
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Peering Error
Is it possible
Title: Message
All,
This seems to be a
fairly simple question and I hope someone can provide a simple answer. In
the documentation for IMail 7 it is fairly well explained how incoming mail is
handled when a domain is configured across multiple physical systems using
peering but what I
This seems to be a fairly simple question and I hope someone can provide a
simple answer. In the documentation for IMail 7 it is fairly well
explained how incoming mail is handled when a domain is configured across
multiple physical systems using peering but what I can't seem to find is
an
This seems to be a fairly simple question and I hope someone can provide a
simple answer. In the documentation for IMail 7 it is fairly well
explained how incoming mail is handled when a domain is configured across
multiple physical systems using peering but what I can't seem to find is
an
Of Sanford
Whiteman
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 1:12 PM
To: Craig Gittens
Subject: Re[5]: [IMail Forum] Peering With Netscape Messaging Server??
Couldn't you find a command line emailer like imail1.exe that would
support attachments and use a program alias?
I cannot imagine how
[3]: [IMail Forum] Peering With Netscape Messaging Server??
howdoesthe non-Imail server, upon receiving a msg
user@recipientdomain, where recipientdomain is local to the non-IMail
server, know to decide
It doesn't need to, as Chris only needs it to go from Imail
Couldn't you find a command line emailer like imail1.exe that would support
attachments and use a program alias?
blat
Len
http://MenAndMice.com/DNS-training
http://BIND8NT.MEIway.com : ISC BIND 8.2.4 for NT4 W2K
http://IMGate.MEIway.com : Build free, hi-perf, anti-abuse mail gateways
Couldn't you find a command line emailer like imail1.exe that would
support attachments and use a program alias?
I cannot imagine how this would be an elegant solution to Chris'
problem.
Sandy
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this
Exactly, my wish is to keep my IMail server in place. And yes Serge, I
agree, if I can't get things working where my users can still send and
receive mail through my IMail server, the next best solution would be to use
the NMS as the outgoing server.
Sandy, you mentioned that this could be done
Do you know how this would be done on NMS?
Hmm. Been a while since I've admined NMS. I have a SuiteSpot CD
somewhere that I could try to load up. Does the other sysadmin have a
manual?
Sandy
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 10:22 AM
Subject: Re[4]: [IMail Forum] Peering With Netscape Messaging Server??
Do you know how this would be done on NMS?
Hmm. Been a while since I've admined NMS. I have a SuiteSpot CD
somewhere that I could try to load up. Does the other sysadmin
Per iPlanet, there would appear to be an NMS script called setconf
which accepts the following syntax to add an SMTP banner:
setconf service.smtp.banner X1 NT-ESMTP Server
You can do a search on SMTP banner to get more info.
Sandy
Please visit
Thanks for the help. I'll get with the other admin and see about trying this
out.
--
Chris.
- Original Message -
From: Sanford Whiteman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Chris McFarling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 2:59 PM
Subject: Re[6]: [IMail Forum] Peering With Netscape
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
