Now we have the picture... You either need a consultant or a new resume. At this point, the consultant is the better choice.
Seriously - this gets into the big ugly of how Exchange 5.5 routes mail, and goes back to what I said the other day about connector cost being one of the last used factors in routing mail. Since you're routing across organizations, your x.400 connectors have some very specific address space entries, and I'll bet that you messed one of those up. And that's way to hard to figure out in this kind of forum. Personally, I'd either go for the consultant, or go call PSS and spend the money to get them to walk you though the fixes. ------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -----Original Message----- > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:07 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > This is where things get really complicated. > > These 2 servers are not in the same ORG as all the other > servers. They are, > however (through some procedure that I am have no knowledge > of that was done > 2 years before I took this over) faked into thinking that > they are in the > same ORG. I have no idea how any of this was done, again > before my time. I > may want to just delete the old X.400 between SD and Irvine > and force a > re-calculation of the routing table. I am grasping a straws > at this point. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:35 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > G-d do you need a consulting engagement! I know someone in > San Diego who > could spend a couple days with you on this if you really need > the help. > > Anyway, let me see if I can sort this out: > > EC <-x400-> Irvine (cost 1) > EC <-x400-> SD (cost 1) > Irvine <-x400-> SD (cost 100) > > EC <-IMC (cost 1?) > Irvine <-IMC (Cost 99) > > Now, a few things to keep in mind. In the grand scheme of > Ex5.5 routing, > cost is the 7th (of 7) factors used for routing decisions, > and therefore > doesn't play as much of a role in routing as it should. > However, make sure > that you've set the cost correctly at both ends, and make > sure that you're > not setting the option to only use least cost routes. > > Now - another question. You bought this company. Did you > migrate them to the > same Org as your company, or are they set up as a separate > org name? If they > are different orgs, what are the address space entries on > your x.400 and IMS > with regards to the other company's domains? > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:36 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > Not really an option. > > > > The scenario is this: > > The one remote server is in San Diego that used to be > > connected to > > the other remote server in Irvine, CA by an X.400 > > connector over a T1. > > The only server that was connected to the hub server on the > > E. Coast was > > the one in Irvine. There was an X.400 connector between SD > > and Irvine, then > > an X.400 connector to the EC. There is now an separate X.400 > > connector from SD and Irvine to the hub server. The > > Irvine server > > has an IMC that was used by the old company (that was bought > > by us). The > > cost on the connectors to the hub server from each site > > is set to 1. > > The old connector from SD to Irvine has a cost of > 100. The IMC on > > Irvine is set to 99. I would like to remove the old connector from > > SD-Irvine but, the connectors from each remote site to the > > hub server is > > sooooooo erratic that I have mail that routes from > > SD-Irvine-out the > > IMC in Irvine then back to the hub server on the E. Coast > > through the > > corporate IMC. > > > > There is the jist of what I am going through. It is driving > > me nuts trying > > to troubleshoot this. > > > > Please help..... > > > > Josh > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:36 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > What is it about your routing table that is causing the > > looping messages? Is > > it possible for you to remove redundant routes, even just one > > or two, to see > > what happens? > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:56 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > Yes, the queues back up for an hour or so then flush clean in a 2 > > > minute span once the X.400 connection is successful. > However, due to > > > the way the > > > routing table is, I have messages flowing in a roundabout fashion. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com] > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:35 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > IIRC, you're getting "exceeded the maximum number of > associations" > > > which usually indicates that the total number of connections and > > > associations, > > > which I believe is 9 associations and 10 connects per association. > > > > > > Are you sure there aren't any looping messages, or a > > butload of public > > > folder replication traffic? Is there anything in the MTA queue? > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:11 PM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > > > I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has > > available and > > > > again, it did not correct the situation. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:47 PM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > > > The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd > > > > start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul > > > > Robichaux, if you have that > > > > handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is > > > > called control > > > > blocks. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:24 PM > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I use "supposed to be" due to the issue at hand that is > > > driving me > > > > > insane. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com] > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Replace "supposed to be" with "definitely are" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > > > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:27 PM > > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > 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]
