Yep - I have tried that. I removed it completely, restarted all services to make sure that there were no residual nasties... and then I watched the mail queue up in the MTA.
In the end, I had to re-create the e5.5 IMC to get outbound mail flowing for the e2k server (w/out the SMTP connector on it). FTR, the routing table in site addressing (e5.5 admin) shows the e2k server (with SMTP connector) as the routing server, but in the GWART, the e5.5 IMC is the chosen SMTP route. It doesn't see the e2k SMTP connector... When i hit recalculate routing - nothing changes. That being the case, is it worth deleting the e5.5 IMC, and re-creating the e2k SMTP connector? will this make the e2k SMTP connector visible in e5.5? Easy rollback... very important. thanks for your help so far... MP -----Original Message----- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 2:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 problem... Well, you could probably start by removing the IMS from the Exchange 5.5 server. Easy rollback from there if needed. Chris -- Chris Scharff Senior Sales Engineer MessageOne If you can't measure, you can't manage! > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Peoples [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 8:53 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: X.400 problem... > > > It may solve the problem... but I am just anticipating the > consequences if removing the server form the organization > doesn't work...? > > Will I have mail sitting on the e2k server in the x400 > connector that will have nowhere to go or will e2k figure out > that there is the whole SMTP thing happening...? > > I was thinking about upgrading the e5.5 server to e2k server > and then removing the IMC from the upgraded server - would > that be a safer option...?? If that works, then I could just > remove the upgraded server from the org when all is OK... > > On the other hand, if that doesn't work... I guess a call to > PSS is in order.... > > Or is that giving myself too much work (worry) for nothing? > > Your feedback is appreciated! > > Thanks, > MP > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 1:35 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: X.400 problem... > > > What makes you think that actually removing the server from > the organization won't meet the desired objective? > > Chris > -- > Chris Scharff > Senior Sales Engineer > MessageOne > If you can't measure, you can't manage! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Peoples [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 7:12 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: X.400 problem... > > > > > > The design goal is to have a native e2k site (remove > > dependencies from, and turn off the e5.5 server). > > > > I can't do this at the moment without affecting the outbound > > mail transfer of 1 e2k server. > > > > Does that answer your question? > > MP > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 12:08 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: X.400 problem... > > > > > > What's the design goal here? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Peoples > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Sent: 1/30/2002 6:16 PM > > Subject: X.400 problem... > > > > Hi, > > > > I have an e2k server that routes internet-bound messages to > > the x400 connector and then to my E5.5 server for > > tranmission. When I disable the MTA and IMC on the e5.5 > > server, instead of messages travelling via SMTP to another > > e2k server in the site (with an IMS), the messages sit in the > > x400 queue (on the e2k server) waiting for the MTA on the > > e5.5 server to be started. > > > > All servers are in the same outing and administrative groups. > > Inbound e-mail travels the correct route (e2k->e2k). > > > > I have tried disabling the Exchange services on the e5.5 > > server and restarting the MTA and routing services on the > > offending e2k server.... to no avail. > > > > Any ideas on how to 'convince' the offending e2k server to > > natively talk to the other e2k server first? > > > > Thanks, > > MP > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > 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] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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] > _________________________________________________________________ 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]
