These servers are all connected by WAN links and X.400 connectors are supposed to be more resilient to network interruptions.
-----Original Message----- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse@;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site Connectors. Yes x400 are more efficient just curious. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darcy Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues > I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site > organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. > > And, if you delete the dirrep connector, be prepared to rebuild any cross-site distribution lists after you recreate the connectors (X400 and dirrep). > > Darcy > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I received > a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack in Exchange > to clear this up. > > Any opinions on this idea... > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc@;dc-resources.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > 57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections > 289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be > opened > 1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info > 9202: low-level diagnostic on the connection failure > > In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise > flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over > and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to > actually troubleshoot > what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA > if you > have control over it). > > Precht, do you ever add anything of value? > > -----Original Message----- > From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions@;entrysecurity.com] > Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > www.eventid.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, > Joshua > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:05 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service > The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity > (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 > 34](12) > > Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service > A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 > 26](12) > > Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 > Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was > refused. The failure reason provider was 0 > and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM > KERNEL 25 130](12) > > Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: > Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was > detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. > Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) > > > These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote > server with the same symptoms, the other server just produces the 289 > event id only. > > Thanks, > > Josh > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff@;messageone.com] > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID > or guestimate what "too long"[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective > you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to > the number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received > times which > constitute a "too long" delivery time. > > [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which > routinely resulted in >8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to > Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't > delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Hello all, > > > > I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem > > to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am > > seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. > > > > Here is my setup: > > > > I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all > > these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX > > org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a > > central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the > > spoke servers > > > are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a > > central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the > > remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub > > server by full T1 lines. > > > > My issue is this: > > > > The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is > > written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is > > delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 > > minutes > > > or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the > > surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, > > as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a > > major issue about to explode in my lap? > > > > Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with > > little to no help. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Josh Bennett > > Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer > > Cotelligent, Inc. > > 401 Parkway Drive > > Broomall, PA. 19008 > > 610-359-5929 > > www.cotelligent.com > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ======================================================= > This email and its contents are confidential. If you > are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose > or use the information within this email or its > attachments. If you have received this email in error, > please delete it immediately. Thank you. > ======================================================= > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
