________________________________
Da: HELP_PC Inviato: sab 12/06/2010 17.15 A: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Oggetto: R: Slow Authenticated SMTP sessions Number of concurrent connections allowed ? ________________________________ Da: greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net] Inviato: sab 12/06/2010 16.09 A: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Oggetto: RE: Slow Authenticated SMTP sessions The app basically asks for server name, username and password. We connect to it by dns name. DNS resolution is good. The Receive connector is set to allow exchange users and limited to the internal network scope. Telnet to the server is instant, logging in manually is instant, I have not gone through the full smtp process, I will do that tonight. There is no connectivity problem to the box. If the user send 1 or 2 emails, its instant, if they send 100 users it takes 10 minutes, if they send a thousand it takes the better part of a day. I am turning on the smtp logging to see the amount of time from start to finish it takes to process a transaction. I just wanted to know if there is anything default that I could look at first instead of blindly running through each possible process. -----Original Message----- From: mark tibbet [mailto:m.tib...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 3:55 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Slow Authenticated SMTP sessions are you using dns names or static ip's for your app that relays or sends mail? is the app just looking for an mx record in your domain or an actual a record or cname? is your mta or exchange server doing a rdns lookup? do you have a rdns record? are you sure that the app is not sending mail for some reason out of its internet gateway? are you sure that your app is not using imap or pop? have you tested an smtp session from the app servers to the new exchange box, how long does the response take? and lastly i would run a packet cap on both sides to see what is really going on, a packet capture never lies, sorry for the ramble, just my .02 On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:44 PM, <greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net> wrote: > Any other ideas? Everything else goes just zippy. Its just when we open > any of our apps that basically sends individual emails using the Exchange > Server as an authenticated relay. School software, membership software > that sends invoices etc. > > > > I was considering opening it up to anonymous internally for testing, but > then I am sure the tarpitting throttle rule will come into effect as that's > listed as on by default in the MS docs for anonymous connections. > > > > Thx > > > > Greg > > From: greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net] > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:22 PM > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Slow Authenticated SMTP sessions > > > > Nope. Unless it on by default, but from what I see its not. > > > > From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 8:33 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Slow Authenticated SMTP sessions > > > > Any journaling in the environment? > > > > Regards, > > > > Michael B. Smith > > Consultant and Exchange MVP > > http://TheEssentialExchange.com <http://theessentialexchange.com/> > > > > From: greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net] > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 7:47 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: Slow Authenticated SMTP sessions > > > > Hey guys, > > > > With our move from 2003 to 2010 everything is working great with the > exception of one piece. Authenticated relay from applications. We have it > working, basically created a new Receive connector with the network scope, > basic only and Exchange Users. Works except that all SMTP sessions are slow > to transmit. We have several apps that email reports etc directly from the > app and they specify their credentials and away it goes. What took minutes > with Exchange 2003 takes hours with 2010. It feels like its throttling the > connection in some way. > > > > Any pointers? I have searched around but not finding much on this. > > > > Thanks > > > > Greg