Production servers are not for "playing." That's what a lab is for. Is that
someone still there?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jennifer Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: oh, man what a mess
>
> Someone apparently was playing with the costs in the remote site and set
> it to zero on 11/8/99, Complaints were received during that week, then
> someone set it back on 11/15/99, but did not flush the queues.
>
> A big-wig apparently sent a flame mail during that week which did
> not get delivered until today. He said it was one of his "finer pieces of
work",
> but the recipient wasn't his boss at the time. Oopsy.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Daniel Chenault wrote:
>
> > The MTA is unable to determine the state (inbound, outbound) of the IMS.
> > Thus the MTA will still deliver messages into the IMS' hidden mailbox
for
> > external delivery if certain conditions are met. Since the IMS was set
to
> > inbound only, those messages were never looked at. Not until you set it
to
> > outbound did it look at and process those messages.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jennifer Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 1:24 PM
> > Subject: RE: oh, man what a mess
> >
> >
> > > I understand that the IMS was setup incorrectly in
> > > this remote site. My dilemma is that 3000 messages (some 3 years old,
> > some 5 months old) have
> > > apparently been sent after configuring the IMS correctly, (all sent
> > > outbound.)
> > >
> > > If this is true:
> > >
> > > >Setting an IMS to Inbound Only in Exchange 5.5 and earlier will not
keep
> > > > the MTAs from routing outbound SMTP mail to the IMS server.
> > >
> > > then why did 3000 very old outbound messages get sent after setting
the
> > > IMS to Outbound Only?
> > >
> > > I prefer ahfuku.com, that also works.
> > >
> > > Charma, ED.
> > >
> > > On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Ed Crowley wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jennifer, please read the list! This is discussed every so often!
> > Setting
> > > > an IMS to Inbound Only in Exchange 5.5 and earlier will not keep the
> > MTAs
> > > > from routing outbound SMTP mail to the IMS server. The way to keep
that
> > > > from happening is to change the Address Space so that it has but one
> > entry
> > > > of "clownpenis.fart". (It has to be that exact domain. Don't ask
me
> > why.)
> > > > Then the GWARTs won't try to route mail bound to valid SMTP
addresses to
> > > > that server. Microsoft would call this behavior "by design". If it
is
> > by
> > > > design then it is a severe and longstanding design flaw.
> > > >
> > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
> > > > Tech Consultant
> > > > Compaq Computer Corporation
> > > > All your base are belong to us.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jennifer
Baker
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 10:12 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: oh, man what a mess
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > After changing a remote IMS from send only Inbound to send Outbound
Only
> > > > then back to Inbound only mode, many messages (3000) were sent from
as
> > far
> > > > back as 1999. If the IMS is set to inbound only, would it not send
> > > > undeliverables for refused connections or would it just queue the
> > message?
> > > > It seems that any other maildomain that is not hosted by the org
would
> > be
> > > > sent as undeliverable yet it got queued somewhere. Anybody know
where?
> > I
> > > > have other remote IMS queues that could have the same issue, but I
> > cannot
> > > > locate the queue directories on those servers.
> > > >
> > > > I know test it and find out...which is what got me into this mess.
> > > > Also, whenever I would make the change it would tell me to restart
the
> > > > service. I hit ok, restarted the service, reopened the IMS
properties
> > and
> > > > the apply button would be highlighted as if it never took the
change.
> > > > After going thru this motion several times, it would behave the same
> > way.
> > > >
> > > > Hope this makes a bit of sense, I am a bit frantic at the moment.
> > > >
> > > > Jennifer Baker
> > > > Fluke Corporation
> > > > http://www.fluke.com
> > > > http://www.flukenetworks.com
> > > > mailto:[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]
> >
>
> Jennifer Baker
> Fluke Corporation
> http://www.fluke.com
> http://www.flukenetworks.com
> mailto:[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]
