I'll forego the assault, Edna.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jennifer Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: oh, man what a mess
> no, he is not. I cannot judge, since I am one of those arrogant ignorant
> admins. I cannot seem to get out of the "If it isn't broken, it doesn't
> have enough features yet" mode. If I would have known *better* I should
> have checked the queues before making the change to the correct config.
>
> Beat me and call me Edna.
>
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Daniel Chenault wrote:
>
> > 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]
