RE: OutlookXP and Exchange 5.5

[Finch Brett]

 Some good ideas to look into from all, thanks...

-Original Message-
From: Ed Smits [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 17:26
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OutlookXP and Exchange 5.5


Don't discard the network idea without checking it thoroughly - I run OXP on
WinXP, connect to an Exch. 5.5 SP4 server, and get that message from time to
time only when I connect from home via ADSL and VPN. I've seen it
momentarily a few times at the office getting data from another server on
the far side of the WAN, usually those times can be fairly easily correlated
to times of network congestion.

ED

-Original Message-
From: Finch Brett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OutlookXP and Exchange 5.5


 I've tried everything to get rid of that annoying "feature" that seems to
take a OLXP client offline all the time. I tried to disable offline use,
tried disabling AV email scanning, I am at a loss how I can get rid of this
stupid message from the OLXP client  "Requesting data from MS Exchange
Server" every time a user wants to open an attachment or a Public Folder.
Exchange 5.5 SPK4 on NT4 SPK6a with OutlookXP (SPK1) client. I've searched
here and at MS's knowledge base, what am I missing? I truly doubt it is a
network issue, switched 100MB to the desktop, and Fast Ethernet channels via
switch to the server, load in 
minimal as well. I'm convinced it is the client...
 Any idea's anyone?

_
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]

RE: Accessing OWA via a Proxy/Relay Server

[Ed Crowley]

Do you enter the user ID in the format domain\account?

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Alex T
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:24 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Accessing OWA via a Proxy/Relay Server


Apologies in advance if this question is dumb or has already been
addressed 
in the archives or elsewhere--we are still Win2K/Exchange novices and
would 
appreciate some help.  We upgraded to Exchange from a UNIX/sendmail
system. 
About 75 mailboxes.  Server is running Win2K SP2 and E2K SP2. Clients 
running Windows98/NT4 with Outlook 2000.  We also have a few internal
Mac 
clients that access Exchange via OWA.

We now want to open up OWA for off-site users and do so securely.  We 
installed a new separate Win2K SP2 server behind the firewall, opened
the 
firewall to allow Internet traffic to this new server, and enabled IIS
on it 
with virtual folders pointing to the OWA folders on the Exchange Server.

This new server is running ISA.  When we attempt to connect from the
outside 
using http://newservername/exchange, we are prompted for user/password,
but 
after entering an administrator userID/password (who has an e-mail
account), 
we get 403 Unauthorized Access error.   We are able to connect to other 
non-exchange folders on the Exchange server using this method (e.g. 
http://newservername/intranet to reach the corporate Intranet site).  We

have followed the directions in MS articles Q308599, Q290113, Q207655.
What 
are we missing here?


_
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com


_
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]

RE: Would this be the preferred or workable way to merge?

[Ed Crowley]

That is a "consulting engagement" question.  It could take hours to
answer that properly.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of RB
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:48 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Would this be the preferred or workable way to merge?


We have several domains each with their own Exchange 5.0 
organisation(s)

We want to amalgamate all Exchange 5.5 organisations into 
our new Win2k/E2k set up.

What is the preferred method of migrating the Exchange 5.5 
organisations to the E2k organisation whilst maintaining 
connectivity and a synchronised GAL?

I believe this breaks down to 2 main requirements:
1. Have a synchronised GAL across the 5.5 orgs and E2k org
2. Move users data

I believe the ADC would present me with a synchronised GAL 
(am I right)
If so the only question is what is the best way to migrate 
the data.
There are a few thousand mailboxes involved.

For moving data would exmerge work/be recommended?

Thanks
RB

_
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]

RE: Exchange Migration Question

[ToddMicro, Inc.]

Try: http://www.aelita.com/products/EMW.htm

Todd Fleenor
HCA Healthcare
Nashville, TN

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Williams Scott
CTR
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange Migration Question



I've been detailed to an assignment that will involve a migration of 5
different Exchange 5.5 ORG's, 2 Groupwise ORG's, and 1 Sendmail to ONE
Exchange 5.5 org.

My question is  What would be your recommendation on the best migration
utility that could do most, if not everything?  I've looked at Direct to 1
and E-mail Shuttle (CompuSeven).  

Anyone have a recommendation?  


Thanks for your input.

_
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]

Re: Accessing OWA via a Proxy/Relay Server

[Tony Hlabse]

So you set it up as a front end/ back end deployment?

- Original Message -
From: "Alex T" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:24 PM
Subject: Accessing OWA via a Proxy/Relay Server


> Apologies in advance if this question is dumb or has already been
addressed
> in the archives or elsewhere--we are still Win2K/Exchange novices and
would
> appreciate some help.  We upgraded to Exchange from a UNIX/sendmail
system.
> About 75 mailboxes.  Server is running Win2K SP2 and E2K SP2. Clients
> running Windows98/NT4 with Outlook 2000.  We also have a few internal Mac
> clients that access Exchange via OWA.
>
> We now want to open up OWA for off-site users and do so securely.  We
> installed a new separate Win2K SP2 server behind the firewall, opened the
> firewall to allow Internet traffic to this new server, and enabled IIS on
it
> with virtual folders pointing to the OWA folders on the Exchange Server.
> This new server is running ISA.  When we attempt to connect from the
outside
> using http://newservername/exchange, we are prompted for user/password,
but
> after entering an administrator userID/password (who has an e-mail
account),
> we get 403 Unauthorized Access error.   We are able to connect to other
> non-exchange folders on the Exchange server using this method (e.g.
> http://newservername/intranet to reach the corporate Intranet site).  We
> have followed the directions in MS articles Q308599, Q290113, Q207655.
What
> are we missing here?
>
>
> _
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>
>
> _
> 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]

RE: Exchange Migration Question

[William Lefkovics]

http://www.netiq.com/products/migrate/default.asp

http://www.compusven.com/

I'd do it as a stepping stone project versus all at once though. :)

William




-Original Message-
From: Williams Scott CTR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange Migration Question



I've been detailed to an assignment that will involve a migration of 5
different Exchange 5.5 ORG's, 2 Groupwise ORG's, and 1 Sendmail to ONE
Exchange 5.5 org.

My question is  What would be your recommendation on the best migration
utility that could do most, if not everything?  I've looked at Direct to 1
and E-mail Shuttle (CompuSeven).  

Anyone have a recommendation?  


Thanks for your input.

_
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]

Exchange Migration Question

[Williams Scott CTR]

I've been detailed to an assignment that will involve a migration of 5
different Exchange 5.5 ORG's, 2 Groupwise ORG's, and 1 Sendmail to ONE
Exchange 5.5 org.

My question is  What would be your recommendation on the best migration
utility that could do most, if not everything?  I've looked at Direct to 1
and E-mail Shuttle (CompuSeven).  

Anyone have a recommendation?  


Thanks for your input.

_
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]

Would this be the preferred or workable way to merge?

[RB]

We have several domains each with their own Exchange 5.0 
organisation(s)

We want to amalgamate all Exchange 5.5 organisations into 
our new Win2k/E2k set up.

What is the preferred method of migrating the Exchange 5.5 
organisations to the E2k organisation whilst maintaining 
connectivity and a synchronised GAL?

I believe this breaks down to 2 main requirements:
1. Have a synchronised GAL across the 5.5 orgs and E2k org
2. Move users data

I believe the ADC would present me with a synchronised GAL 
(am I right)
If so the only question is what is the best way to migrate 
the data.
There are a few thousand mailboxes involved.

For moving data would exmerge work/be recommended?

Thanks
RB

_
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]

Accessing OWA via a Proxy/Relay Server

[Alex T]

Apologies in advance if this question is dumb or has already been addressed 
in the archives or elsewhere--we are still Win2K/Exchange novices and would 
appreciate some help.  We upgraded to Exchange from a UNIX/sendmail system. 
About 75 mailboxes.  Server is running Win2K SP2 and E2K SP2. Clients 
running Windows98/NT4 with Outlook 2000.  We also have a few internal Mac 
clients that access Exchange via OWA.

We now want to open up OWA for off-site users and do so securely.  We 
installed a new separate Win2K SP2 server behind the firewall, opened the 
firewall to allow Internet traffic to this new server, and enabled IIS on it 
with virtual folders pointing to the OWA folders on the Exchange Server.  
This new server is running ISA.  When we attempt to connect from the outside 
using http://newservername/exchange, we are prompted for user/password, but 
after entering an administrator userID/password (who has an e-mail account), 
we get 403 Unauthorized Access error.   We are able to connect to other 
non-exchange folders on the Exchange server using this method (e.g. 
http://newservername/intranet to reach the corporate Intranet site).  We 
have followed the directions in MS articles Q308599, Q290113, Q207655.  What 
are we missing here?


_
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com


_
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]

Major Migration Question:

[Williams Scott CTR]

I've been detailed to an assignment that will involve a migration of 5
different Exchange 5.5 ORG's, 2 Groupwise ORG's, and 1 Sendmail to ONE
Exchange 5.5 org.

My question is  What would be your recommendation on the best migration
utility that could do most, if not everything?  I've looked at Direct to 1
and E-mail Shuttle (CompuSeven).  

Anyone have a recommendation?  


Thanks for your input.

_
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]

FW: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-011

[Martin Blackstone]

-Original Message-
From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-011


http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-011.asp

Authentication Flaw Could Allow Unauthorized Users To Authenticate To SMTP
Service

Originally posted: February 27, 2002

Summary

Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft(r) Windows(r) 2000
or Exchange(r) Server 5.5

Impact of vulnerability: Mail relaying.

Maximum Severity Rating: Low

Recommendation: Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should
apply the Windows patch; all others should disable the SMTP service.
Customers using the Exchange Server 5.5 IMC should apply the Exchange Server
5.5 IMC patch.

Affected Software: 
- Microsoft Windows 2000 
- Microsoft Exchange Server 5.5

Technical description: 

An SMTP service installs by default as part of Windows 2000 server products
and as part of the Internet Mail Connector (IMC) for Microsoft Exchange
Server 5.5.  (The IMC, also known as the Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail
Service, provides access and message exchange to and from any system that
uses SMTP).  A vulnerability results in both services because of a flaw in
the way they handle a valid response from the NTLM authentication layer of
the underlying operating system.

By design, the Windows 2000 SMTP service and the Exchange Server 5.5 IMC,
upon receiving notification from the NTLM authentication layer that a user
has been authenticated, should perform additional checks before granting the
user access to the service.  The vulnerability results because the affected
services don't perform this additional checking correctly.  In some cases,
this could result in the SMTP service granting access to a user solely on
the basis of their ability to successfully authenticate to the server.

An attacker who exploited the vulnerability could gain only user-level
privileges on the SMTP service, thereby enabling the attacker to use the
service but not to administer it. The most likely purpose in exploiting the
vulnerability would be to perform mail relaying via the server. 

Mitigating factors:
- Exchange 2000 servers are not affected by the vulnerability because they
correctly handle the authentication process to the SMTP service. 
- The vulnerability would not enable the attacker to read other users'
email, nor to send mail as other users.
- Best practices recommend disabling unneeded services. If the SMTP service
has been disabled, the mail relaying vulnerability could not be exploited.
- The vulnerability would not grant administrative privileges to the
service, nor would it grant the attacker the ability to run programs or
operating system commands.

Vulnerability identifier: CAN-2002-0054



This email is sent to NTBugtraq automatically as a service to my
subscribers. Since its programmatically created, and since its been a long
time since anyone paid actual money for my programming skills, it may or may
not look that good...;-]

I can only hope that the information it does contain can be read well enough
to serve its purpose.

Cheers,
Russ - Surgeon General of TruSecure Corporation/NTBugtraq Editor


Delivery co-sponsored by Qualys - Make Your Network Secure

Go Beyond PARTIAL Security: FREE White Paper

Stop hassling with half-baked ENTERPRISE SECURITY.
FREE White Paper shows you how to ensure TOTAL security for your Internet
perimeter with the most current and most complete PROACTIVE Vulnerability
Assessment solution. Get your FREE White Paper now. Click here!
https://www.qualys.com/forms/techwhite_86.html


_
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]

FW: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012

[Martin Blackstone]

-Original Message-
From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012


http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-012.asp

Malformed Data Transfer Request can Cause Windows SMTP Service to Fail

Originally posted: February 27, 2002

Summary

Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft(r) Windows(r) 2000
Server and Professional, Windows XP Professional and Exchange Server 2000

Impact of vulnerability:Denial of Service

Maximum Severity Rating:Low

Recommendation:Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP services should
apply the patch; all others should disable the SMTP service.

Affected Software: 
- Microsoft Windows 2000
- Microsoft Windows XP Professional
- Microsoft Exchange 2000

Technical description: 

An SMTP service installs by default as part of Windows 2000 server products.
Exchange 2000, which can only be installed on Windows 2000, uses the native
Windows 2000 SMTP service rather than providing its own.  In addition,
Windows 2000 and Windows XP workstation products provide an SMTP service
that is not installed by default.  All of these implementations contain a
flaw that could enable denial of service attacks to be mounted against the
service.

The flaw involves how the service handles a particular type of SMTP command
used to transfer the data that constitutes an incoming mail.  By sending a
malformed version of this command, an attacker could cause the SMTP service
to fail. This would have the effect of disrupting mail services on the
affected system, but would not cause the operating system itself to fail.   

Mitigating factors:
- Windows XP Home Edition does not provide an SMTP service, and is not
affected by the vulnerability.
- Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional do provide an SMTP
service, but it is not installed by default.
- Windows 2000 server products do install the SMTP service by default.
However, best practices recommend disabling any unneeded services, and
systems on which the SMTP service had been disabled would not be at risk.
- Exchange 5.5, even if installed on a Windows 2000 server, is not affected
by the vulnerability.
- The result of an attack would be limited to disrupting the SMTP service
and, depending on the system configuration, potentially IIS and other
internet services as well.  However, it would not disrupt any other system
functions.
- The vulnerability would not enable an attacker to gain any privileges on
the affected system or to access users' email or data.

Vulnerability identifier: CAN-2002-0055



This email is sent to NTBugtraq automatically as a service to my
subscribers. Since its programmatically created, and since its been a long
time since anyone paid actual money for my programming skills, it may or may
not look that good...;-]

I can only hope that the information it does contain can be read well enough
to serve its purpose.

Cheers,
Russ - Surgeon General of TruSecure Corporation/NTBugtraq Editor


Delivery co-sponsored by Qualys - Make Your Network Secure

Go Beyond PARTIAL Security: FREE White Paper

Stop hassling with half-baked ENTERPRISE SECURITY.
FREE White Paper shows you how to ensure TOTAL security for your Internet
perimeter with the most current and most complete PROACTIVE Vulnerability
Assessment solution. Get your FREE White Paper now. Click here!
https://www.qualys.com/forms/techwhite_86.html


_
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]

RE: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer

[Andy David]

ROFL! 

So you ask her seven questions: 

Well, I'd have to know a couple more things...like:
1) Who's the company?
2) Where in New Jersey?
3) Are they going to pay to move me?
4) Signing bonuses?
5) Bonuses of any kind?
6) Benefits?
7) Do I pay for ongoing training/conferences or are they going to?
 

and her only response is :

Where exactly would you be moving from?






-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 5:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer


Here's the script for questions I've already asked Ms Bonade about this
position:

Jim Blunt

==

Unfortunately, I will not be able to relocate anyone for this position.
 
Thank You,
 
Julie
-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:13 PM
To: 'Bonade, Julie'
Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity


SE corner of Washington State.
-Original Message-
From: Bonade, Julie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:39 PM
To: 'Blunt, James H (Jim)'
Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity


Where exactly would you be moving from?
-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:55 PM
To: 'Bonade, Julie'
Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity


Julie,
 
Well, I'd have to know a couple more things...like:
1) Who's the company?
2) Where in New Jersey?
3) Are they going to pay to move me?
4) Signing bonuses?
5) Bonuses of any kind?
6) Benefits?
7) Do I pay for ongoing training/conferences or are they going to?
 
Thanks,
 
JIm Blunt
-Original Message-
From: Bonade, Julie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:31 PM
To: 'Blunt, James H (Jim)'
Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity


Long-term - could go for years - really depending on the contractor and how
long he/she wants to be there.  I have had consultants there for 4-5 years
and still continuing on.  It will be an hourly rate but it will be based on
the person's experience so I can't be too sure.  What type of hourly rate
are you looking at?
 
Julie Bonade
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:44 PM
To: 'Bonade, Julie'
Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity


Can you be more specific concerning the length of the contract and the pay?
 
James H (Jim) Blunt
Network / Microsoft Exchange Admin.
Network & Infrastructure Group
Bechtel Hanford, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: Julie Bonade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:48 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer


If anyone is looking or knows of anyone that is looking for a new
opportunity - Please read below.

3rd Level Messaging/Exchange Engineer (long-term contract in New Jersey)

Day to day responsibilities include Level 3 Messaging support, requiring
advanced troubleshooting skills and techniques.  Migration engineering,
project participation, Server monitoring/management using products like
NetIQ, CIM, Inlook, Dell OpenManage.  Message flow design and
architecture, candidate must be an expert in; planning Directory
Replication, Public folder Replication, Site and X.400 connectors,
Notes/CC:Mail connectors, Internet mail relay, Sendmail/Solaris, and
Exchange 2000.

_
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]

--
The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential 
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are 
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is 
strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email in error, please immediately 
notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or 
email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message.  Thank you.

==


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch

RE: OutlookXP and Exchange 5.5

[Ed Smits]

Don't discard the network idea without checking it thoroughly - I run OXP on
WinXP, connect to an Exch. 5.5 SP4 server, and get that message from time to
time only when I connect from home via ADSL and VPN. I've seen it
momentarily a few times at the office getting data from another server on
the far side of the WAN, usually those times can be fairly easily correlated
to times of network congestion.

ED

-Original Message-
From: Finch Brett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OutlookXP and Exchange 5.5


 I've tried everything to get rid of that annoying "feature" that seems to
take a OLXP client offline all the time. I tried to disable offline use,
tried disabling AV email scanning, I am at a loss how I can get rid of this
stupid message from the OLXP client  "Requesting data from MS Exchange
Server" every time a user wants to open an attachment or a Public Folder.
Exchange 5.5 SPK4 on NT4 SPK6a with OutlookXP (SPK1) client. I've searched
here and at MS's knowledge base, what am I missing? I truly doubt it is a
network issue, switched 100MB to the desktop, and Fast Ethernet channels via
switch to the server, load in 
minimal as well. I'm convinced it is the client...
 Any idea's anyone?

_
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]

RE: OutlookXP and Exchange 5.5

[Kenneth Walden]

The only place I've found to 'remove' that feature is while building a
custom installation of OfficeXP.  Using the Custom Installation Wizard
included with the OfficeXP Resource Kit, you can change the Office User
Settings (page 9 of 15).  The setting is under the "Microsoft Outlook 2002"
-- "Miscellaneous" -- "Exchange Settings" grouping, and is called "Disable
cancelable RPC progress dialog."
You may also be able to do this using the Custom Maintenance Wizard.
Both of these options will only work if you are using an administrative
installation point instead of installing from CD's.  To remove it after the
fact, there may be a registry modification; I haven't found it in the KB.
For more information on the ORK see www.microsoft.com/office/ork  

Please be aware though, this feature is meant to alleviate the appearance of
Outlook hanging/freezing when a user requests data (open message, switch
views, open attachment, etc.).  Rather than just freezing the interface (as
in previous versions), it gives you the 'Requesting Data' dialog to provide
an opportunity to cancel the process or at least see that work is being
done.  It's nothing more than that.  There isn't a problem to diagnose and
fix.  I personally like it and am leaving it enabled in our deployment.

--Kenneth Walden

-Original Message-
From: Finch Brett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OutlookXP and Exchange 5.5


 I've tried everything to get rid of that annoying "feature"
that seems to take a OLXP client offline all the time. I tried
to disable offline use, tried disabling AV email scanning, I am
at a loss how I can get rid of this stupid message from the OLXP
client  "Requesting data from MS Exchange Server" every time a
user wants to open an attachment or a Public Folder.
 Exchange 5.5 SPK4 on NT4 SPK6a with OutlookXP (SPK1) client.
I've searched here and at MS's knowledge base, what am I missing?
I truly doubt it is a network issue, switched 100MB to the desktop,
and Fast Ethernet channels via switch to the server, load in 
minimal as well. I'm convinced it is the client...
 Any idea's anyone?

_
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]

RE: Event ID 951

[Bauschek, Joe]

That's a tough one, over my head, sorry..

Regards,
Joe Bauschek - Network Engineer
Medical Information Management Systems LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




-Original Message-
From: Gerhart, Steve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:12 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Event ID 951


Here is the actual error message...

When sending mail to following address
*.EDE060DB-CE5F-8D41-B286-EDFA5726C44A, we have found the  connector with
target domain *.EDE060DB-CE5F-8D41-B286-EDFA5726C44A matching destination
address  exists in DS. However, we have no way of getting there. Possibly,
you need  to check your topology and add appropriate connectors among
Routing Groups



-Original Message-
From: Bauschek, Joe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:03 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Event ID 951


HUH? More details would help... if you got SNA 2.x running on any of
the boxes check 
Q148596


Regards,
Joe Bauschek - Network Engineer
Medical Information Management Systems LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




-Original Message-
From: Gerhart, Steve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:56 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Event ID 951


Has anyone ever seen this error (Event ID 951).. Exchange 2000 and 5.5
environment


Steve Gerhart


_
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]

RE: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer

[Soysal, Serdar]

Hey, if you're not at work, you must be slacking off.  It's ok when you
browse all day while at work though.  That's business related since you're
sitting on a company chair.

Serdar Soysal


-Original Message-
From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 5:29 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer


I love this "no telecommuting" mentality.  It's so 90's.  What?  Nobody
there knows how to push a switch if I call?  What do you think I can't do
remotely?  Pshaw.  Pshaw, I say!


-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Posted At: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:26 PM
Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List
Conversation: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer
Subject: Re: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer


And no telecommuting. Being a native Texan moving to NJ is out of the
question.

- Original Message -
From: "Blunt, James H (Jim)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:19 PM
Subject: RE: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer


> Here's the script for questions I've already asked Ms Bonade about
> this
> position:
>
> Jim Blunt
>
> ==
>
> Unfortunately, I will not be able to relocate anyone for this
> position.
>
> Thank You,
>
> Julie
> -Original Message-
> From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:13 PM
> To: 'Bonade, Julie'
> Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity
>
>
> SE corner of Washington State.
> -Original Message-
> From: Bonade, Julie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:39 PM
> To: 'Blunt, James H (Jim)'
> Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity
>
>
> Where exactly would you be moving from?
> -Original Message-
> From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:55 PM
> To: 'Bonade, Julie'
> Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity
>
>
> Julie,
>
> Well, I'd have to know a couple more things...like:
> 1) Who's the company?
> 2) Where in New Jersey?
> 3) Are they going to pay to move me?
> 4) Signing bonuses?
> 5) Bonuses of any kind?
> 6) Benefits?
> 7) Do I pay for ongoing training/conferences or are they going to?
>
> Thanks,
>
> JIm Blunt
> -Original Message-
> From: Bonade, Julie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:31 PM
> To: 'Blunt, James H (Jim)'
> Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity
>
>
> Long-term - could go for years - really depending on the contractor
> and
how
> long he/she wants to be there.  I have had consultants there for 4-5
> years and still continuing on.  It will be an hourly rate but it will 
> be based
on
> the person's experience so I can't be too sure.  What type of hourly
> rate are you looking at?
>
> Julie Bonade
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:44 PM
> To: 'Bonade, Julie'
> Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity
>
>
> Can you be more specific concerning the length of the contract and the
pay?
>
> James H (Jim) Blunt
> Network / Microsoft Exchange Admin.
> Network & Infrastructure Group
> Bechtel Hanford, Inc.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Julie Bonade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:48 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer
>
>
> If anyone is looking or knows of anyone that is looking for a new
> opportunity - Please read below.
>
> 3rd Level Messaging/Exchange Engineer (long-term contract in New
> Jersey)
>
> Day to day responsibilities include Level 3 Messaging support,
> requiring advanced troubleshooting skills and techniques.  Migration 
> engineering, project participation, Server monitoring/management using

> products like NetIQ, CIM, Inlook, Dell OpenManage.  Message flow
> design and architecture, candidate must be an expert in; planning 
> Directory Replication, Public folder Replication, Site and X.400 
> connectors, Notes/CC:Mail connectors, Internet mail relay, 
> Sendmail/Solaris, and Exchange 2000.
>
> _
> 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
Archi

Re: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer

[Daniel Chenault]

I can understand wanting a warm body there at times; that's what airports
are for (or, in my case, motorcycles and superslabs).

- Original Message -
From: "Tom Meunier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:29 PM
Subject: RE: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer


I love this "no telecommuting" mentality.  It's so 90's.  What?  Nobody
there knows how to push a switch if I call?  What do you think I can't
do remotely?  Pshaw.  Pshaw, I say!


-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:26 PM
Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List
Conversation: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer
Subject: Re: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer


And no telecommuting. Being a native Texan moving to NJ is out of the
question.

- Original Message -
From: "Blunt, James H (Jim)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:19 PM
Subject: RE: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer


> Here's the script for questions I've already asked Ms Bonade about
> this
> position:
>
> Jim Blunt
>
> ==
>
> Unfortunately, I will not be able to relocate anyone for this
> position.
>
> Thank You,
>
> Julie
> -Original Message-
> From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:13 PM
> To: 'Bonade, Julie'
> Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity
>
>
> SE corner of Washington State.
> -Original Message-
> From: Bonade, Julie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:39 PM
> To: 'Blunt, James H (Jim)'
> Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity
>
>
> Where exactly would you be moving from?
> -Original Message-
> From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:55 PM
> To: 'Bonade, Julie'
> Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity
>
>
> Julie,
>
> Well, I'd have to know a couple more things...like:
> 1) Who's the company?
> 2) Where in New Jersey?
> 3) Are they going to pay to move me?
> 4) Signing bonuses?
> 5) Bonuses of any kind?
> 6) Benefits?
> 7) Do I pay for ongoing training/conferences or are they going to?
>
> Thanks,
>
> JIm Blunt
> -Original Message-
> From: Bonade, Julie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:31 PM
> To: 'Blunt, James H (Jim)'
> Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity
>
>
> Long-term - could go for years - really depending on the contractor
> and
how
> long he/she wants to be there.  I have had consultants there for 4-5
> years and still continuing on.  It will be an hourly rate but it will
> be based
on
> the person's experience so I can't be too sure.  What type of hourly
> rate are you looking at?
>
> Julie Bonade
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:44 PM
> To: 'Bonade, Julie'
> Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity
>
>
> Can you be more specific concerning the length of the contract and the
pay?
>
> James H (Jim) Blunt
> Network / Microsoft Exchange Admin.
> Network & Infrastructure Group
> Bechtel Hanford, Inc.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Julie Bonade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:48 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer
>
>
> If anyone is looking or knows of anyone that is looking for a new
> opportunity - Please read below.
>
> 3rd Level Messaging/Exchange Engineer (long-term contract in New
> Jersey)
>
> Day to day responsibilities include Level 3 Messaging support,
> requiring advanced troubleshooting skills and techniques.  Migration
> engineering, project participation, Server monitoring/management using

> products like NetIQ, CIM, Inlook, Dell OpenManage.  Message flow
> design and architecture, candidate must be an expert in; planning
> Directory Replication, Public folder Replication, Site and X.400
> connectors, Notes/CC:Mail connectors, Internet mail relay,
> Sendmail/Solaris, and Exchange 2000.
>
> _
> 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/

RE: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer

[Tom Meunier]

I love this "no telecommuting" mentality.  It's so 90's.  What?  Nobody
there knows how to push a switch if I call?  What do you think I can't
do remotely?  Pshaw.  Pshaw, I say!


-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Posted At: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:26 PM
Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List
Conversation: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer
Subject: Re: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer


And no telecommuting. Being a native Texan moving to NJ is out of the
question.

- Original Message -
From: "Blunt, James H (Jim)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:19 PM
Subject: RE: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer


> Here's the script for questions I've already asked Ms Bonade about 
> this
> position:
>
> Jim Blunt
>
> ==
>
> Unfortunately, I will not be able to relocate anyone for this 
> position.
>
> Thank You,
>
> Julie
> -Original Message-
> From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:13 PM
> To: 'Bonade, Julie'
> Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity
>
>
> SE corner of Washington State.
> -Original Message-
> From: Bonade, Julie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:39 PM
> To: 'Blunt, James H (Jim)'
> Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity
>
>
> Where exactly would you be moving from?
> -Original Message-
> From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:55 PM
> To: 'Bonade, Julie'
> Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity
>
>
> Julie,
>
> Well, I'd have to know a couple more things...like:
> 1) Who's the company?
> 2) Where in New Jersey?
> 3) Are they going to pay to move me?
> 4) Signing bonuses?
> 5) Bonuses of any kind?
> 6) Benefits?
> 7) Do I pay for ongoing training/conferences or are they going to?
>
> Thanks,
>
> JIm Blunt
> -Original Message-
> From: Bonade, Julie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:31 PM
> To: 'Blunt, James H (Jim)'
> Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity
>
>
> Long-term - could go for years - really depending on the contractor 
> and
how
> long he/she wants to be there.  I have had consultants there for 4-5 
> years and still continuing on.  It will be an hourly rate but it will 
> be based
on
> the person's experience so I can't be too sure.  What type of hourly 
> rate are you looking at?
>
> Julie Bonade
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:44 PM
> To: 'Bonade, Julie'
> Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity
>
>
> Can you be more specific concerning the length of the contract and the
pay?
>
> James H (Jim) Blunt
> Network / Microsoft Exchange Admin.
> Network & Infrastructure Group
> Bechtel Hanford, Inc.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Julie Bonade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:48 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer
>
>
> If anyone is looking or knows of anyone that is looking for a new 
> opportunity - Please read below.
>
> 3rd Level Messaging/Exchange Engineer (long-term contract in New 
> Jersey)
>
> Day to day responsibilities include Level 3 Messaging support, 
> requiring advanced troubleshooting skills and techniques.  Migration 
> engineering, project participation, Server monitoring/management using

> products like NetIQ, CIM, Inlook, Dell OpenManage.  Message flow 
> design and architecture, candidate must be an expert in; planning 
> Directory Replication, Public folder Replication, Site and X.400 
> connectors, Notes/CC:Mail connectors, Internet mail relay, 
> Sendmail/Solaris, and Exchange 2000.
>
> _
> 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: ma

Re: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer

[Daniel Chenault]

And no telecommuting. Being a native Texan moving to NJ is out of the
question.

- Original Message -
From: "Blunt, James H (Jim)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:19 PM
Subject: RE: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer


> Here's the script for questions I've already asked Ms Bonade about this
> position:
>
> Jim Blunt
>
> ==
>
> Unfortunately, I will not be able to relocate anyone for this position.
>
> Thank You,
>
> Julie
> -Original Message-
> From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:13 PM
> To: 'Bonade, Julie'
> Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity
>
>
> SE corner of Washington State.
> -Original Message-
> From: Bonade, Julie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:39 PM
> To: 'Blunt, James H (Jim)'
> Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity
>
>
> Where exactly would you be moving from?
> -Original Message-
> From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:55 PM
> To: 'Bonade, Julie'
> Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity
>
>
> Julie,
>
> Well, I'd have to know a couple more things...like:
> 1) Who's the company?
> 2) Where in New Jersey?
> 3) Are they going to pay to move me?
> 4) Signing bonuses?
> 5) Bonuses of any kind?
> 6) Benefits?
> 7) Do I pay for ongoing training/conferences or are they going to?
>
> Thanks,
>
> JIm Blunt
> -Original Message-
> From: Bonade, Julie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:31 PM
> To: 'Blunt, James H (Jim)'
> Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity
>
>
> Long-term - could go for years - really depending on the contractor and
how
> long he/she wants to be there.  I have had consultants there for 4-5 years
> and still continuing on.  It will be an hourly rate but it will be based
on
> the person's experience so I can't be too sure.  What type of hourly rate
> are you looking at?
>
> Julie Bonade
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:44 PM
> To: 'Bonade, Julie'
> Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity
>
>
> Can you be more specific concerning the length of the contract and the
pay?
>
> James H (Jim) Blunt
> Network / Microsoft Exchange Admin.
> Network & Infrastructure Group
> Bechtel Hanford, Inc.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Julie Bonade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:48 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer
>
>
> If anyone is looking or knows of anyone that is looking for a new
> opportunity - Please read below.
>
> 3rd Level Messaging/Exchange Engineer (long-term contract in New Jersey)
>
> Day to day responsibilities include Level 3 Messaging support, requiring
> advanced troubleshooting skills and techniques.  Migration engineering,
> project participation, Server monitoring/management using products like
> NetIQ, CIM, Inlook, Dell OpenManage.  Message flow design and
> architecture, candidate must be an expert in; planning Directory
> Replication, Public folder Replication, Site and X.400 connectors,
> Notes/CC:Mail connectors, Internet mail relay, Sendmail/Solaris, and
> Exchange 2000.
>
> _
> 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]

RE: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer

[Blunt, James H (Jim)]

Here's the script for questions I've already asked Ms Bonade about this
position:

Jim Blunt

==

Unfortunately, I will not be able to relocate anyone for this position.
 
Thank You,
 
Julie
-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:13 PM
To: 'Bonade, Julie'
Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity


SE corner of Washington State.
-Original Message-
From: Bonade, Julie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:39 PM
To: 'Blunt, James H (Jim)'
Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity


Where exactly would you be moving from?
-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:55 PM
To: 'Bonade, Julie'
Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity


Julie,
 
Well, I'd have to know a couple more things...like:
1) Who's the company?
2) Where in New Jersey?
3) Are they going to pay to move me?
4) Signing bonuses?
5) Bonuses of any kind?
6) Benefits?
7) Do I pay for ongoing training/conferences or are they going to?
 
Thanks,
 
JIm Blunt
-Original Message-
From: Bonade, Julie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:31 PM
To: 'Blunt, James H (Jim)'
Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity


Long-term - could go for years - really depending on the contractor and how
long he/she wants to be there.  I have had consultants there for 4-5 years
and still continuing on.  It will be an hourly rate but it will be based on
the person's experience so I can't be too sure.  What type of hourly rate
are you looking at?
 
Julie Bonade
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:44 PM
To: 'Bonade, Julie'
Subject: RE: 3rd Level Exchange Opportunity


Can you be more specific concerning the length of the contract and the pay?
 
James H (Jim) Blunt
Network / Microsoft Exchange Admin.
Network & Infrastructure Group
Bechtel Hanford, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: Julie Bonade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:48 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer


If anyone is looking or knows of anyone that is looking for a new
opportunity - Please read below.

3rd Level Messaging/Exchange Engineer (long-term contract in New Jersey)

Day to day responsibilities include Level 3 Messaging support, requiring
advanced troubleshooting skills and techniques.  Migration engineering,
project participation, Server monitoring/management using products like
NetIQ, CIM, Inlook, Dell OpenManage.  Message flow design and
architecture, candidate must be an expert in; planning Directory
Replication, Public folder Replication, Site and X.400 connectors,
Notes/CC:Mail connectors, Internet mail relay, Sendmail/Solaris, and
Exchange 2000.

_
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]

RE: Reasonable message size limits

[Jasa, Ken]

Excellent advice Serdar. Thanks.

Ken

-Original Message-
From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:15 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits

We have 4MB across the board.  We were originally looking at 2, 4 and 6MB
limits.  To reach that number we logged all of our internet mail for two
weeks, and found out that only 0.08% of the entire message volume was over
4MB (that is about 300 messages a week for us).  And, only about 10 of those
were actually business related and those were sent by a certain group of
people.  That means that setting the limit at 4MB would impact only a
miniscule amount of messages.  That was acceptable impact for management.
We ended up making an exception for that group (10MB) and now we do have a
working message size limit. 

Setting a limit after a study like that felt a lot better than pulling a
number out of you know where.


Serdar Soysal


-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Reasonable message size limits



Hello,

I have been required to raise the message size limit on all connections to
20Mbs. We have already seen it cause problems across one of our links.

I know it is dependent on the bandwidth and hardware. I just wanted to get
some ideas of what size limits other companies are using.

Thanks.

Ken Jasa
Messaging Manager
Weber Shandwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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]

RE: Reasonable message size limits

[Rocky Stefano]

Still using dial-up for a business? Now that's LUDICROUS (say it with that
rapper tone)


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Boehm, Diane M.
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 5:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


We have our limits set to 3Mb everywhere since 1999.  Yes, we have had some
flack about it, but for the most part clients are working with it.  I can't
imagine trying to receive a file bigger than that over a dial up connection.
That would be ludicrous.  And we have to continue to remind our clients here
of that.

Diane

Diane Boehm
SC Johnson



-Original Message-
From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:32 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


ok i have a question, i have set ours to 5meg.  When i go higher its just a
matter of time till my SMTP server freaks out and has to be booted.  y?

e-

-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


Ours is set to 15mb inbound and outbound.

Jim Blunt

-Original Message-
From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


This is a good question. I have personally limited it to 2MB (except the
directors) with a hard ass approach at first. I will be raising it in a bit
once people remember that they need to be reasonable in what they send (IE
the guy in accounting who tried to email a 98MB file to himself at home). I
am also curious to hear what people are limiting it to.

--
Dustin


-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: February 27, 2002 12:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Reasonable message size limits



Hello,

I have been required to raise the message size limit on all connections to
20Mbs. We have already seen it cause problems across one of our links.

I know it is dependent on the bandwidth and hardware. I just wanted to get
some ideas of what size limits other companies are using.

Thanks.

Ken Jasa
Messaging Manager
Weber Shandwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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]


_
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]

RE: Reasonable message size limits

[Boehm, Diane M.]

We have our limits set to 3Mb everywhere since 1999.  Yes, we have had some
flack about it, but for the most part clients are working with it.  I can't
imagine trying to receive a file bigger than that over a dial up connection.
That would be ludicrous.  And we have to continue to remind our clients here
of that.

Diane

Diane Boehm
SC Johnson



-Original Message-
From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:32 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


ok i have a question, i have set ours to 5meg.  When i go higher its just a
matter of time till my SMTP server freaks out and has to be booted.  y?

e-

-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


Ours is set to 15mb inbound and outbound.

Jim Blunt

-Original Message-
From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


This is a good question. I have personally limited it to 2MB (except the
directors) with a hard ass approach at first. I will be raising it in a bit
once people remember that they need to be reasonable in what they send (IE
the guy in accounting who tried to email a 98MB file to himself at home). I
am also curious to hear what people are limiting it to.

--
Dustin 


-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: February 27, 2002 12:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Reasonable message size limits



Hello,

I have been required to raise the message size limit on all connections to
20Mbs. We have already seen it cause problems across one of our links.

I know it is dependent on the bandwidth and hardware. I just wanted to get
some ideas of what size limits other companies are using.

Thanks.

Ken Jasa
Messaging Manager
Weber Shandwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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]

RE: Managing Server DL

[Ed Crowley]

We know you're looking.  Stop telling us already.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of NetStar
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 11:19 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Managing Server DL


Looking for a way to prevent adding special mailbox to the DL. Help! We
are trying to use the Code from www.ExchangeCode.com (Automatic Home
Server Distribution Lists For Exchange Server Scripting Agent. We did a
test in a small test lab environment and it works great. I like the fact
Home Server DL allow you to put a notes entry to prevent the adding of
special mailboxs. We have 99 server in one site, over 24000 users,
(Exchange 5.5 sp4 (mix mode OS). We are getting "Time allowed is 900
seconds" error. Knowlege base (Q240745) indicated to restart the event
services but still not working. Getting the same error. Any clue why
this is happening or is there any better ways of doing this. Thanks you
inadvanced for your help. Here is the error messages: Error 0x86664004
occurred while trying to run a timer-based agent. 02/25/02 13:45:12
Script execution is cancelled because it exceeded the maximum time
allowed. Time allowed is 900 seconds. Can a Rules Based DLs prevent
special mailbox being added to the DL? THANK YOU IN ADVANCE.

_
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]

RE: Exchange Journalling

[Ed Crowley]

That doesn't sound like a very good idea.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:30 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange Journalling


We are using Exchange 5.5 with SP4.  We are planning on setting up
journalling to a custom recipient.  

If the custom recipient is available for a time, what happens to the
mail that is suppose to be journalled to that recipient?  Will it sit on
our server in a special directory or will it sit in a que somewhere?  I
just don't have a clue.


Dot Harris
Exchange Administrator


_
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]

RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.

[Ed Crowley]

Regarding #2, your argument is valid for Exchange 5.5, but with Exchange
2000 and multiple databases your time to recovery shouldn't be a
function of the number of mailboxes on the server but the number in a
database.  I make a pretty good rebuttal in five minutes, seeing as it
took you a week to come up with yours, no?!

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Reiss, Peter
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:07 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.


This logic seems faulty to me in two ways:

1) "How many users you are willing to have without e-mail when it fails"
*is* a valid question.  Even if the total person-minutes of downtimes
stays constant (which I don't agree with either--see next point), having
half of your users unable to work at one time may be very different (for
your business) than having none of them able to work.  My office only
has about 200 mailboxes, but we have very high uptime requirements for
our business (we are a trading firm), so I would never consider putting
all of these mailboxes on a single server (they are on 2 currently). At
least if one server goes down, half the users are unaffected.

2) I think your person-minutes calculation is wrong.  More precisely, I
think it is incorrect to assume that if a 2000-user server has 99.95%
uptime, that two 1000-user servers each have 99.95% uptime.  Downtime is
calculated as frequency of "downtime" events (unplanned or planned) and
the duration of those events.  Assuming a scenario that requires a
restoral, consistency check, or some other time-consuming Exchange
process, the number of users (and hence size of the store) are a major
factor in determining the length of the downtime incident. So in effect,
by reducing the number of users on a server, you may be reducing the
total downtime (time-to-recovery). So if time-to-recovery of a
1000-person server is 60% of time-to-recovery of a 2000-person server,
then the total person-minutes of downtime in the 2 1000-person servers
is 2 * 1000 * .0005 * .6 = 315,360 (not 525,600). [If a lot of the
downtime is planned and duration is irrespective of server-size, then
this effect is smaller.]

The point about reducing inter-server communications is probably valid,
and it certainly is true that having very many small servers is probably
a bad solution from a reliability standpoint (management is less likely
to be as good).

Peter

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 12:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.


The argument that "It's...how many users you are willing to have without
e-mail when it fails..." is based upon faulty logic.  My rebuttal
argument is thus:

Say you have 2,000 users on one server.  It stays up, say, 99.95% of the
time.  Then you can expect 525,600 person-minutes of downtime per year
(262.8 minutes times 2,000 users).

Say you have 1,000 users on each of two servers.  Each stays up, say,
99.95% of the time.  Then on each box you can expect 262,800
person-minutes of downtime per year for each machine, the aggregate
being 525,600 person-minutes.

Each scenario has the same amount of person-minutes of downtime.  The
argument that more mailbox servers increases reliability would logically
extend to the point where maximum reliability is achieved by giving each
user his own Exchange mailbox server.  Of course, it is obvious 2,000
servers for 2,000 users will not increase reliability.  A failure of a
single server will only affect one user, but you now have 2,000 such
servers failing occasionally.

One could argue that having fewer mailbox servers will actually improve
reliability because there is less inter-server communication.

I do buy the argument that splitting off functions to separate servers
can improve reliability because these functions can cause the mailbox
server to fail.  Overall system reliability may not change, but
perceived reliability will be higher.  For example, if you have problems
with an SMTP Connector, you might have to take an outage on the server
to fix it.  If the SMTP Connector is on a separate box, it's likely that
a brief failure won't even be noticed by users, but if you have to cycle
the mailbox server, far more will notice.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stewart Jump
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 3:58 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.


Its not so much how many users a box can support but how many users you
are willing to have without email when it fails and how long you are
wi

RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.

[Reiss, Peter]

> It could be argued that most employees would be MORE
> productive if without e-mail for a little while.

I agree.  Sadly, it might have a un-productive impact on my bonus.

Peter

_
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]

RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.

[Reiss, Peter]

I don't disagree with any of this.  Assuming you have the scale, I
completely believe in segregating Exchange functions as much as possible
(this approach always seems to work well in the windows world, even though
it is much less necessary in the unix world).  I had assumed the discussion
of splitting up large private stores onto multiple servers involved first
moving off connectors and such.

I'm not really advocating small servers.  I was only commenting that I
didn't think the uptime calculations were correct.  I would never (except in
a small, cost-constrained environment) install only a single mailbox server
though.  On this list, my preferred environment would be refered to as a
"pairwise single-node cluster".

Peter

-Original Message-
From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:38 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.

I tend to agree with Ed.  Segregating functions will improve your
reliability (or perceived reliability) a lot more than spreading your user
load.  When you run dedicated mailbox servers, your downtime should be far
less than it would be if you run multi-purpose servers (unless you use
substandard hardware).  

Besides, since we're talking about Exchange 2000 here, you can still spread
your users over multiple databases & storage groups to minimize impact of a
database corruption.  You really wouldn't run into any hardware related
issues if you run good quality hardware and are religious about monitoring
the health of your hardware.  


Serdar Soysal


-Original Message-
From: Reiss, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:07 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.


This logic seems faulty to me in two ways:

1) "How many users you are willing to have without e-mail when it fails"
*is* a valid question.  Even if the total person-minutes of downtimes stays
constant (which I don't agree with either--see next point), having half of
your users unable to work at one time may be very different (for your
business) than having none of them able to work.  My office only has about
200 mailboxes, but we have very high uptime requirements for our business
(we are a trading firm), so I would never consider putting all of these
mailboxes on a single server (they are on 2 currently). At least if one
server goes down, half the users are unaffected.

2) I think your person-minutes calculation is wrong.  More precisely, I
think it is incorrect to assume that if a 2000-user server has 99.95%
uptime, that two 1000-user servers each have 99.95% uptime.  Downtime is
calculated as frequency of "downtime" events (unplanned or planned) and the
duration of those events.  Assuming a scenario that requires a restoral,
consistency check, or some other time-consuming Exchange process, the number
of users (and hence size of the store) are a major factor in determining the
length of the downtime incident. So in effect, by reducing the number of
users on a server, you may be reducing the total downtime
(time-to-recovery). So if time-to-recovery of a 1000-person server is 60% of
time-to-recovery of a 2000-person server, then the total person-minutes of
downtime in the 2 1000-person servers is 2 * 1000 * .0005 * .6 = 315,360
(not 525,600). [If a lot of the downtime is planned and duration is
irrespective of server-size, then this effect is smaller.]

The point about reducing inter-server communications is probably valid, and
it certainly is true that having very many small servers is probably a bad
solution from a reliability standpoint (management is less likely to be as
good).

Peter

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 12:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.


The argument that "It's...how many users you are willing to have without
e-mail when it fails..." is based upon faulty logic.  My rebuttal argument
is thus:

Say you have 2,000 users on one server.  It stays up, say, 99.95% of the
time.  Then you can expect 525,600 person-minutes of downtime per year
(262.8 minutes times 2,000 users).

Say you have 1,000 users on each of two servers.  Each stays up, say, 99.95%
of the time.  Then on each box you can expect 262,800 person-minutes of
downtime per year for each machine, the aggregate being 525,600
person-minutes.

Each scenario has the same amount of person-minutes of downtime.  The
argument that more mailbox servers increases reliability would logically
extend to the point where maximum reliability is achieved by giving each
user his own Exchange mailbox server.  Of course, it is obvious 2,000
servers for 2,000 users will not increase reliability.  A failure of a
single server will only affect one user, but you now have 2,000 such servers
failing occasionally.

One could argue that having fewer mailbox servers will actually improve
r

RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.

[Ed Crowley]

It could be argued that most employees would be MORE productive if
without e-mail for a little while.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Reiss, Peter
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:07 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.


This logic seems faulty to me in two ways:

1) "How many users you are willing to have without e-mail when it fails"
*is* a valid question.  Even if the total person-minutes of downtimes
stays constant (which I don't agree with either--see next point), having
half of your users unable to work at one time may be very different (for
your business) than having none of them able to work.  My office only
has about 200 mailboxes, but we have very high uptime requirements for
our business (we are a trading firm), so I would never consider putting
all of these mailboxes on a single server (they are on 2 currently). At
least if one server goes down, half the users are unaffected.

2) I think your person-minutes calculation is wrong.  More precisely, I
think it is incorrect to assume that if a 2000-user server has 99.95%
uptime, that two 1000-user servers each have 99.95% uptime.  Downtime is
calculated as frequency of "downtime" events (unplanned or planned) and
the duration of those events.  Assuming a scenario that requires a
restoral, consistency check, or some other time-consuming Exchange
process, the number of users (and hence size of the store) are a major
factor in determining the length of the downtime incident. So in effect,
by reducing the number of users on a server, you may be reducing the
total downtime (time-to-recovery). So if time-to-recovery of a
1000-person server is 60% of time-to-recovery of a 2000-person server,
then the total person-minutes of downtime in the 2 1000-person servers
is 2 * 1000 * .0005 * .6 = 315,360 (not 525,600). [If a lot of the
downtime is planned and duration is irrespective of server-size, then
this effect is smaller.]

The point about reducing inter-server communications is probably valid,
and it certainly is true that having very many small servers is probably
a bad solution from a reliability standpoint (management is less likely
to be as good).

Peter

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 12:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.


The argument that "It's...how many users you are willing to have without
e-mail when it fails..." is based upon faulty logic.  My rebuttal
argument is thus:

Say you have 2,000 users on one server.  It stays up, say, 99.95% of the
time.  Then you can expect 525,600 person-minutes of downtime per year
(262.8 minutes times 2,000 users).

Say you have 1,000 users on each of two servers.  Each stays up, say,
99.95% of the time.  Then on each box you can expect 262,800
person-minutes of downtime per year for each machine, the aggregate
being 525,600 person-minutes.

Each scenario has the same amount of person-minutes of downtime.  The
argument that more mailbox servers increases reliability would logically
extend to the point where maximum reliability is achieved by giving each
user his own Exchange mailbox server.  Of course, it is obvious 2,000
servers for 2,000 users will not increase reliability.  A failure of a
single server will only affect one user, but you now have 2,000 such
servers failing occasionally.

One could argue that having fewer mailbox servers will actually improve
reliability because there is less inter-server communication.

I do buy the argument that splitting off functions to separate servers
can improve reliability because these functions can cause the mailbox
server to fail.  Overall system reliability may not change, but
perceived reliability will be higher.  For example, if you have problems
with an SMTP Connector, you might have to take an outage on the server
to fix it.  If the SMTP Connector is on a separate box, it's likely that
a brief failure won't even be noticed by users, but if you have to cycle
the mailbox server, far more will notice.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stewart Jump
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 3:58 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.


Its not so much how many users a box can support but how many users you
are willing to have without email when it fails and how long you are
wiling to sit there while restoring the server. 3000 users @2MB is only
60GB. Assuming you have an LTO tape drive (100GB native + compression at
?:1) then you could probably get 6000 users on a server and back it up
to one 

RE: Reasonable message size limits

[Soysal, Serdar]

It depends on how high you want to go and what your server configuration is.
If you have only 500MB free space left on your log drive and someone sends
you a 499MB attachment, your server may "freak out".

Once again, this limit should be dictated by the business need, not when
your server's capacity.  If your company needs to send 200MB attachments[1],
you need to deploy an SMTP server that can handle several of those
simultaneously.

Serdar Soysal

[1] Assuming there's a business partner that can receive them.


-Original Message-
From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:32 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


ok i have a question, i have set ours to 5meg.  When i go higher its just a
matter of time till my SMTP server freaks out and has to be booted.  y?

e-

-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


Ours is set to 15mb inbound and outbound.

Jim Blunt

-Original Message-
From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


This is a good question. I have personally limited it to 2MB (except the
directors) with a hard ass approach at first. I will be raising it in a bit
once people remember that they need to be reasonable in what they send (IE
the guy in accounting who tried to email a 98MB file to himself at home). I
am also curious to hear what people are limiting it to.

--
Dustin 


-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: February 27, 2002 12:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Reasonable message size limits



Hello,

I have been required to raise the message size limit on all connections to
20Mbs. We have already seen it cause problems across one of our links.

I know it is dependent on the bandwidth and hardware. I just wanted to get
some ideas of what size limits other companies are using.

Thanks.

Ken Jasa
Messaging Manager
Weber Shandwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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]

RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.

[Reiss, Peter]

> > So if time-to-recovery of a 1000-person 
> > server is 60% of time-to-recovery of a 2000-person server,
>
>   
>
> Isn't doing something in 60% of the time *twice* equal to 120%
> or 20% more total downtime?

I hate to say it, but the answer to that was in the scary
math equation :-)  In fact, you will have 20% more *server*
downtime, but each server has only half as many users.  So
therefore, your person-minutes of downtime is 60%, not 120%.
Of course, my 60% number was just a guess (the time
difference between fixing a 1GB store and a 2GB store
is not very large, but the time difference between fixing a 
50GB store and 100GB store is).

Peter

_
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]

RE: Managing Server DL

[Andy David]

Netstar 9. Netstar 9.
You are breaking up.
Suggest you return to base.
Over.



-Original Message-
From: NetStar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:19 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Managing Server DL


Looking for a way to prevent adding special mailbox to the DL. Help! We
are trying to use the Code from www.ExchangeCode.com (Automatic Home
Server Distribution Lists For Exchange Server Scripting Agent. We did a
test in a small test lab environment and it works great. I like the fact
Home Server DL allow you to put a notes entry to prevent the adding of
special mailboxs. We have 99 server in one site, over 24000 users,
(Exchange 5.5 sp4 (mix mode OS). We are getting "Time allowed is 900
seconds" error. Knowlege base (Q240745) indicated to restart the event
services but still not working. Getting the same error. Any clue why this
is happening or is there any better ways of doing this. Thanks you
inadvanced for your help. Here is the error messages: Error 0x86664004
occurred while trying to run a timer-based agent. 02/25/02 13:45:12 Script
execution is cancelled because it exceeded the maximum time allowed. Time
allowed is 900 seconds. Can a Rules Based DLs prevent special mailbox
being added to the DL? THANK YOU IN ADVANCE.

_
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]

--
The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential 
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are 
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is 
strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email in error, please immediately 
notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or 
email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message.  Thank you.

==


_
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]

Managing DL

[NetStar]

Looking for a way to pevent adding special mailbox to
the DL. Help!
We are trying to use the Code from
www.ExchangeCode.com (Automatic Home Server
Distribution Lists For Exchange Server Scripting
Agent. We did a test in a small test lab environment
and it works great. I like the fact Home Server DL
allow you to put a notes entry to prevent the adding
of special mailboxs.

We have 99 server in one site, over 24000 users,
(Exchange 5.5 sp4 (mix mode OS). We are getting "Time
allowed is 900 seconds" error. Knowlege base (Q240745)
indicated to restart the event services but still not
working. Getting the same error. Any clue why this is
happening or is there any better ways of doing this.
Thanks you inadvanced for your help.

Here is the error messages: 
Error 0x86664004 occurred while trying to run a
timer-based agent.
02/25/02 13:45:12   Script execution is cancelled
because it exceeded the maximum time allowed. Time
allowed is 900 seconds. 

Can a Rules Based DLs pevent special mailbox beeing
added to the DL?

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE.



__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

_
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]

RE: OutlookXP and Exchange 5.5

[Soysal, Serdar]

Try unchecking the Server Side Scripting add-in on that desktop, if it is
checked.

Serdar Soysal


-Original Message-
From: Finch Brett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OutlookXP and Exchange 5.5


 I've tried everything to get rid of that annoying "feature" that seems to
take a OLXP client offline all the time. I tried to disable offline use,
tried disabling AV email scanning, I am at a loss how I can get rid of this
stupid message from the OLXP client  "Requesting data from MS Exchange
Server" every time a user wants to open an attachment or a Public Folder.
Exchange 5.5 SPK4 on NT4 SPK6a with OutlookXP (SPK1) client. I've searched
here and at MS's knowledge base, what am I missing? I truly doubt it is a
network issue, switched 100MB to the desktop, and Fast Ethernet channels via
switch to the server, load in 
minimal as well. I'm convinced it is the client...
 Any idea's anyone?

_
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]

RE: E2K OWA & M: drive

[Ed Crowley]

I think your problem has nothing to do with the M: drive.  It has to do
with the fact that you must have a recipient policy that matches the
user's SMTP address.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 5:48 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: E2K OWA & M: drive


I've got a question about Exchange 2k. On my lab system where I'm
testing E2k, I initially could not get OWA to work. I then found that in
order for OWA to work, users must have an SMTP address corresponding to
the subdirectory name on the E2k server's "M:" drive.

My MSX5.5 org and site are "KIIX" and "EXCHANGEX" respectively. After I
added an E2K server to the site, the subdirectory under the M: drive is
"EXCHANGEX.KIIX.COM". No recipients have an SMTP address of
@exchangex.kiix.com". OWA won't work until I add an @exchangex.kiix.com
address to each recipient.

Is there a way to change the subdirectory under the "M:" drive to
correspond with the existing recipients SMTP addresses (@kimball.com)?



_
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]

RE: Least risk to migrate from 5.5 to E2k

[Ed Crowley]

I answered #1 in your other thread.  As to #2, you're probably looking
at Exmerge.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of RB
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:31 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Least risk to migrate from 5.5 to E2k


We have several domains each with their own Exchange 5.0 organisation(s)

We want to amalgamate all Exchange 5.5 organisations into our new
Win2k/E2k set up.

What is the preferred method of migrating the Exchange 5.5 organisations
to the E2k organisation whilst maintaining connectivity and a
synchronised GAL?

I believe this breaks down to 2 main requirements:
1. Have a synchronised GAL across the 5.5 orgs and E2k org
2. Move users data

I believe the ADC would present me with a synchronised GAL (am I right)
If so the only question is what is the best way to migrate the data.
There are a few thousand mailboxes involved.

For moving data would exmerge work/be recommended?

Thanks
RB

_
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]

RE: Reasonable message size limits

[Hansen, Eric]

ok i have a question, i have set ours to 5meg.  When i go higher its just a
matter of time till my SMTP server freaks out and has to be booted.  y?

e-

-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


Ours is set to 15mb inbound and outbound.

Jim Blunt

-Original Message-
From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


This is a good question. I have personally limited it to 2MB (except the
directors) with a hard ass approach at first. I will be raising it in a bit
once people remember that they need to be reasonable in what they send (IE
the guy in accounting who tried to email a 98MB file to himself at home). I
am also curious to hear what people are limiting it to.

--
Dustin 


-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: February 27, 2002 12:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Reasonable message size limits



Hello,

I have been required to raise the message size limit on all connections to
20Mbs. We have already seen it cause problems across one of our links.

I know it is dependent on the bandwidth and hardware. I just wanted to get
some ideas of what size limits other companies are using.

Thanks.

Ken Jasa
Messaging Manager
Weber Shandwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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]

RE: bringing it all together

[Ed Crowley]

Avaliable options I'm aware of:
1.  Compaq LDAP Directory Synchronization Utility (LDSU)
2.  Microsoft Metadirectory Server
3.  SimpleSync
4.  MS Mail Dirsync (unsupported by Microsoft, but is supposed to work)
5.  InterOrg tool

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of RB
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:03 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: bringing it all together


Folks, a quick question which probably has many answers.

With the build of a new Exchange 2000 organisation if I want to
synchronise all the GALS from the MSX 5.5 orgs and add to this the E2k
GAL In order to get one version of the GAL across all orgs (5.5 and
E2k).

Is there a tool that can do this ?

Thanks
RB

_
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]

RE: E2K OWA & M: drive

[Tom Meunier]

You're looking at it from a kind of different angle than I've heard it
before.  Go back to ignoring the M: drive, please.

You ignoring it?  Good.
Now, make certain that all your users have an SMTP address that reflects
the address listed in your default recipient policy.  What is that
domain?  Change it if you like.  But add new recipient policies to cover
any different domains.  Still ignoring the M: drive?  Good.  Wait there.
Don't move...  :)


-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Posted At: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:48 AM
Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List
Conversation: E2K OWA & M: drive
Subject: E2K OWA & M: drive


I've got a question about Exchange 2k. On my lab system where I'm
testing E2k, I initially could not get OWA to work. I then found that in
order for OWA to work, users must have an SMTP address corresponding to
the subdirectory name on the E2k server's "M:" drive.

My MSX5.5 org and site are "KIIX" and "EXCHANGEX" respectively. After I
added an E2K server to the site, the subdirectory under the M: drive is
"EXCHANGEX.KIIX.COM". No recipients have an SMTP address of
@exchangex.kiix.com". OWA won't work until I add an @exchangex.kiix.com
address to each recipient.

Is there a way to change the subdirectory under the "M:" drive to
correspond with the existing recipients SMTP addresses (@kimball.com)?



_
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]

RE: Reasonable message size limits

[Pfefferkorn, Pete (PFEFFEPE)]

We have the MTA's set for 20 meg.  The IMS's set for 20 meg.  And we also
have each users profile for a maximum size of 20 meg.  

-Original Message-
From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


This is a good question. I have personally limited it to 2MB (except the
directors) with a hard ass approach at first. I will be raising it in a bit
once people remember that they need to be reasonable in what they send (IE
the guy in accounting who tried to email a 98MB file to himself at home). I
am also curious to hear what people are limiting it to.

--
Dustin 


-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: February 27, 2002 12:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Reasonable message size limits



Hello,

I have been required to raise the message size limit on all connections to
20Mbs. We have already seen it cause problems across one of our links.

I know it is dependent on the bandwidth and hardware. I just wanted to get
some ideas of what size limits other companies are using.

Thanks.

Ken Jasa
Messaging Manager
Weber Shandwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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]

RE: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer

[Andy David]

Got any openings for an expert fdisker?


-Original Message-
From: Julie Bonade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:48 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer


If anyone is looking or knows of anyone that is looking for a new
opportunity - Please read below.

3rd Level Messaging/Exchange Engineer (long-term contract in New Jersey)

Day to day responsibilities include Level 3 Messaging support, requiring
advanced troubleshooting skills and techniques.  Migration engineering,
project participation, Server monitoring/management using products like
NetIQ, CIM, Inlook, Dell OpenManage.  Message flow design and
architecture, candidate must be an expert in; planning Directory
Replication, Public folder Replication, Site and X.400 connectors,
Notes/CC:Mail connectors, Internet mail relay, Sendmail/Solaris, and
Exchange 2000.

_
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]

--
The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential 
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are 
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is 
strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email in error, please immediately 
notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or 
email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message.  Thank you.

==


_
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]

OutlookXP and Exchange 5.5

[Finch Brett]

 I've tried everything to get rid of that annoying "feature"
that seems to take a OLXP client offline all the time. I tried
to disable offline use, tried disabling AV email scanning, I am
at a loss how I can get rid of this stupid message from the OLXP
client  "Requesting data from MS Exchange Server" every time a
user wants to open an attachment or a Public Folder.
 Exchange 5.5 SPK4 on NT4 SPK6a with OutlookXP (SPK1) client.
I've searched here and at MS's knowledge base, what am I missing?
I truly doubt it is a network issue, switched 100MB to the desktop,
and Fast Ethernet channels via switch to the server, load in 
minimal as well. I'm convinced it is the client...
 Any idea's anyone?

_
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]

Managing Server DL

[NetStar]

Looking for a way to prevent adding special mailbox to the DL. Help! We
are trying to use the Code from www.ExchangeCode.com (Automatic Home
Server Distribution Lists For Exchange Server Scripting Agent. We did a
test in a small test lab environment and it works great. I like the fact
Home Server DL allow you to put a notes entry to prevent the adding of
special mailboxs. We have 99 server in one site, over 24000 users,
(Exchange 5.5 sp4 (mix mode OS). We are getting "Time allowed is 900
seconds" error. Knowlege base (Q240745) indicated to restart the event
services but still not working. Getting the same error. Any clue why this
is happening or is there any better ways of doing this. Thanks you
inadvanced for your help. Here is the error messages: Error 0x86664004
occurred while trying to run a timer-based agent. 02/25/02 13:45:12 Script
execution is cancelled because it exceeded the maximum time allowed. Time
allowed is 900 seconds. Can a Rules Based DLs prevent special mailbox
being added to the DL? THANK YOU IN ADVANCE.

_
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]

Managing Server DL

[zzTest Discussion]

Looking for a way to pevent adding special mailbox to the DL. Help! We are
trying to use the Code from www.ExchangeCode.com (Automatic Home Server
Distribution Lists For Exchange Server Scripting Agent. We did a test in a
small test lab environment and it works great. I like the fact Home Server
DL allow you to put a notes entry to prevent the adding of special mailboxs.
We have 99 server in one site, over 24000 users, (Exchange 5.5 sp4 (mix mode
OS). We are getting "Time allowed is 900 seconds" error. Knowlege base
(Q240745) indicated to restart the event services but still not working.
Getting the same error. Any clue why this is happening or is there any
better ways of doing this. Thanks you inadvanced for your help. Here is the
error messages: Error 0x86664004 occurred while trying to run a timer-based
agent. 02/25/02 13:45:12 Script execution is cancelled because it exceeded
the maximum time allowed. Time allowed is 900 seconds. Can a Rules Based DLs
pevent special mailbox beeing added to the DL? THANK YOU IN ADVANCE. 


_
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]

Looking for a 3rd Level Exchange Engineer

[Julie Bonade]

If anyone is looking or knows of anyone looking for a new opportunity -
please read below.

3rd Level Messaging/Exchange Engineer (New Jersey)

Day to day responsibilities include Level 3 Messaging support, requiring
advanced troubleshooting skills and techniques.  Migration engineering,
project participation, Server monitoring/management using products like
NetIQ, CIM, Inlook, Dell OpenManage.  Message flow design and
architecture, candidate must be an expert in; planning Directory
Replication, Public folder Replication, Site and X.400 connectors,
Notes/CC:Mail connectors, Internet mail relay, Sendmail/Solaris, and
Exchange 2000.

Email - [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]

test

[NetStar]

test

_
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]

Exchange Journalling

[DOT]

We are using Exchange 5.5 with SP4.  We are planning on setting up
journalling to a custom recipient.  

If the custom recipient is available for a time, what happens to the mail
that is suppose to be journalled to that recipient?  Will it sit on our
server in a special directory or will it sit in a que somewhere?  I just
don't have a clue.


Dot Harris
Exchange Administrator


_
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]

Looking for 3rd level messaging engineer

[Julie Bonade]

If anyone is looking or knows of anyone that is looking for a new
opportunity - Please read below.

3rd Level Messaging/Exchange Engineer (long-term contract in New Jersey)

Day to day responsibilities include Level 3 Messaging support, requiring
advanced troubleshooting skills and techniques.  Migration engineering,
project participation, Server monitoring/management using products like
NetIQ, CIM, Inlook, Dell OpenManage.  Message flow design and
architecture, candidate must be an expert in; planning Directory
Replication, Public folder Replication, Site and X.400 connectors,
Notes/CC:Mail connectors, Internet mail relay, Sendmail/Solaris, and
Exchange 2000.

_
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]

VB6 access to exchange server (anon)

[Matt]

Hello,
I've a small problem and I need some experts.

I am trying to access a remote Exchage server anonymously to send email
from within a VB dll. The program executes (sending mail) when I use a
profileName (with the Inbox profile) that is setup on the local machine
(where the dll is running).

To go for anon access, the 'anon' parameters for login (differnet then
using profileName) are:
strProfileInfo =
"/o=1ADCTECH/ou=1ADCTECH/cn=Configuration/cn=Servers/cn=ADCSRV1" & vbLf &
"anon" & vbLf & "anon"

Set objSession = CreateObject("MAPI.SESSION")

objSession.Logon "", "", False, True, 0, True, strProfileInfo

'This code produces a login failure error. 
However, When I execute the code with ASP on the webserver with Exchange,
it will logon. Of course, the code reference also speaks of using an
exchange account and passing the strProfileInfo as ("exchangeserver" &
vblf & "accountname")

The purpose of this code is to pass the exchange server information into a
function and connect to that exchange server. I do not want to have a
profile. It seems documented and recommend to use the anon login.

I have read this article: MS Q195681
AND 152.196.229.229/asp7.htm

Any suggestions, solutions, or references are welcome, thanks in advance.
Matt

_
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]

Managing DL

[NetStar]

Looking for a way to pevent adding special mailbox to
the DL. Help!
We are trying to use the Code from
www.ExchangeCode.com (Automatic Home Server
Distribution Lists For Exchange Server Scripting
Agent. We did a test in a small test lab environment
and it works great. I like the fact Home Server DL
allow you to put a notes entry to prevent the adding
of special mailboxs.

We have 99 server in one site, over 24000 users,
(Exchange 5.5 sp4 (mix mode OS). We are getting "Time
allowed is 900 seconds" error. Knowlege base (Q240745)
indicated to restart the event services but still not
working. Getting the same error. Any clue why this is
happening or is there any better ways of doing this.
Thanks you inadvanced for your help.

Here is the error messages: 
Error 0x86664004 occurred while trying to run a
timer-based agent.
02/25/02 13:45:12   Script execution is cancelled
because it exceeded the maximum time allowed. Time
allowed is 900 seconds. 

Can a Rules Based DLs pevent special mailbox beeing
added to the DL?

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE.



__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

_
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]

Least risk to migrate from 5.5 to E2k

[RB]

We have several domains each with their own Exchange 5.0 organisation(s)

We want to amalgamate all Exchange 5.5 organisations into our new
Win2k/E2k set up.

What is the preferred method of migrating the Exchange 5.5 organisations
to the E2k organisation whilst maintaining connectivity and a synchronised
GAL?

I believe this breaks down to 2 main requirements:
1. Have a synchronised GAL across the 5.5 orgs and E2k org
2. Move users data

I believe the ADC would present me with a synchronised GAL (am I right)
If so the only question is what is the best way to migrate the data.
There are a few thousand mailboxes involved.

For moving data would exmerge work/be recommended?

Thanks
RB

_
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]

Managing Server DL

[NetStar]

Looking for a way to pevent adding special mailbox to
the DL. Help!
We are trying to use the Code from
www.ExchangeCode.com (Automatic Home Server
Distribution Lists For Exchange Server Scripting
Agent. We did a test in a small test lab environment
and it works great. I like the fact Home Server DL
allow you to put a notes entry to prevent the adding
of special mailboxs.

We have 99 server in one site, over 24000 users,
(Exchange 5.5 sp4 (mix mode OS). We are getting "Time
allowed is 900 seconds" error. Knowlege base (Q240745)
indicated to restart the event services but still not
working. Getting the same error. Any clue why this is
happening or is there any better ways of doing this.
Thanks you inadvanced for your help.

Here is the error messages: 
Error 0x86664004 occurred while trying to run a
timer-based agent.
02/25/02 13:45:12   Script execution is cancelled
because it exceeded the maximum time allowed. Time
allowed is 900 seconds. 

Can a Rules Based DLs pevent special mailbox beeing
added to the DL?

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE.



__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

_
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]

Managing DL

[NetStar]

Looking for a way to pevent adding special mailbox to
the DL. Help!
We are trying to use the Code from
www.ExchangeCode.com (Automatic Home Server
Distribution Lists For Exchange Server Scripting
Agent. We did a test in a small test lab environment
and it works great. I like the fact Home Server DL
allow you to put a notes entry to prevent the adding
of special mailboxs.

We have 99 server in one site, over 24000 users,
(Exchange 5.5 sp4 (mix mode OS). We are getting "Time
allowed is 900 seconds" error. Knowlege base (Q240745)
indicated to restart the event services but still not
working. Getting the same error. Any clue why this is
happening or is there any better ways of doing this.
Thanks you inadvanced for your help.

Here is the error messages: 
Error 0x86664004 occurred while trying to run a
timer-based agent.
02/25/02 13:45:12   Script execution is cancelled
because it exceeded the maximum time allowed. Time
allowed is 900 seconds. 

Can a Rules Based DLs pevent special mailbox beeing
added to the DL?

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE.


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

_
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]

Home DL servers

[NetStar]

We are trying to use the Code from
www.ExchangeCode.com (Automatic Home Server
Distribution Lists For Exchange Server Scripting
Agent. We did a test in a small test lab environment
and it works great. I like the fact Home Server DL
allow you to put a notes entry to prevent the adding
of special mailboxs.

We have 99 server in one site, over 24000 users,
(Exchange 5.5 sp4 (mix mode OS). We are getting "Time
allowed is 900 seconds" error. Knowlege base (Q240745)
indicated to restart the event services but still not
working. Getting the same error. Any clue why this is
happening or is there any better ways of doing this.
Thanks you inadvanced for your help.

Here is the error messages: 
Error 0x86664004 occurred while trying to run a
timer-based agent.
02/25/02 13:45:12   Script execution is cancelled
because it exceeded the maximum time allowed. Time
allowed is 900 seconds. 

Can Rules Based DLs pevent special mailbox beeing
added to the DL?

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE.


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

_
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]

RE: x.400 filter virus scanning

[Soysal, Serdar]

The archives will reveal detailed answers to this question.  My feeling is
it is sufficient to have something like Antigen or ScanMail running on all
of your servers, along with an SMTP scanner on your DMZ relay host, but
YMMV.

Serdar Soysal


-Original Message-
From: James Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:32 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: x.400 filter virus scanning


Fello Guru's,
Am looking for a solution which will scan for viruses within x.400 protocol.
I have looked at Mailsweeper for exchange 2000 and this seems to have the
capability. However do not want to upgrade the domain to 2000. Needs to be
kept NT and exchange 5.5.

Mailsweeper for exchange 5.5 only picks up x.400 which is embedded in smtp.

In the passed this large corporation had one of its exchange 5.5 which got
infected from within the domain, this then spread via X.400 to all other
exchange machines. SMTP are all very well when scanning external mail coming
in but I need to have a look at internal filtering.

Have had a look at clearswift which seems pretty reputable. Anybody have
some input to add. What I should set as main objectives and any thing I
should take into consideration.

Cheers
Mike
MCSE 

_
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]

bringing it all together

[RB]

Folks, a quick question which probably has many answers.

With the build of a new Exchange 2000 organisation if I want to
synchronise all the GALS from the MSX 5.5 orgs and add to this the E2k GAL
In order to get one version of the GAL across all orgs (5.5 and E2k).

Is there a tool that can do this ?

Thanks
RB

_
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]

E2K OWA & M: drive

[Ken Cornetet]

I've got a question about Exchange 2k. On my lab system where I'm testing
E2k, I initially could not get OWA to work. I then found that in order for
OWA to work, users must have an SMTP address corresponding to the
subdirectory name on the E2k server's "M:" drive.

My MSX5.5 org and site are "KIIX" and "EXCHANGEX" respectively. After I
added an E2K server to the site, the subdirectory under the M: drive is
"EXCHANGEX.KIIX.COM". No recipients have an SMTP address of
@exchangex.kiix.com". OWA won't work until I add an @exchangex.kiix.com
address to each recipient.

Is there a way to change the subdirectory under the "M:" drive to correspond
with the existing recipients SMTP addresses (@kimball.com)?



_
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]

E2K OWA & M: drive

[Ken Cornetet]

I've got a question about Exchange 2k. On my lab system where I'm testing
E2k, I initially could not get OWA to work. I then found that in order for
OWA to work, users must have an SMTP address corresponding to the
subdirectory name on the E2k server's "M:" drive.

After I added an E2K server to the existing 5.5 org (KIIX) and site
(EXCHANGEX), the subdirectory under the M: drive is "EXCHANGEX.KIIX.COM". No
recipients have an SMTP address of @exchangex.kiix.com". OWA won't work
until I add an @exchangex.kiix.com address to each recipient.

Is there a way to change the subdirectory under the "M:" drive to correspond
with the existing recipients' SMTP addresses (@kimball.com)?



_
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]

RE: Reasonable message size limits

[Jasa, Ken]

FTP As an alternative for large messages is what we have done in the past -
New leadership.

-Original Message-
From: Seitz, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


FTP?

-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


Thanks.

-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


1. We have a dedicated full T-1 to our ISP.
2. We do environmental cleanup at this location, so we do a lot of work with
CAD / Geologic data files that can become quite large in size. 3. Several of
the companies we interact with (labs, subcontractors, etc.) require these
files. 4. Because of the above criteria, we felt that was a reasonable
limit.

-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:26 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


What did you base that number on?

-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


Ours is set to 15mb inbound and outbound.

Jim Blunt

-Original Message-
From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


This is a good question. I have personally limited it to 2MB (except the
directors) with a hard ass approach at first. I will be raising it in a bit
once people remember that they need to be reasonable in what they send (IE
the guy in accounting who tried to email a 98MB file to himself at home). I
am also curious to hear what people are limiting it to.

--
Dustin 


-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: February 27, 2002 12:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Reasonable message size limits



Hello,

I have been required to raise the message size limit on all connections to
20Mbs. We have already seen it cause problems across one of our links.

I know it is dependent on the bandwidth and hardware. I just wanted to get
some ideas of what size limits other companies are using.

Thanks.

Ken Jasa
Messaging Manager
Weber Shandwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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]

_
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]

RE: Reasonable message size limits

[Soysal, Serdar]

We have 4MB across the board.  We were originally looking at 2, 4 and 6MB
limits.  To reach that number we logged all of our internet mail for two
weeks, and found out that only 0.08% of the entire message volume was over
4MB (that is about 300 messages a week for us).  And, only about 10 of those
were actually business related and those were sent by a certain group of
people.  That means that setting the limit at 4MB would impact only a
miniscule amount of messages.  That was acceptable impact for management.
We ended up making an exception for that group (10MB) and now we do have a
working message size limit. 

Setting a limit after a study like that felt a lot better than pulling a
number out of you know where.


Serdar Soysal


-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Reasonable message size limits



Hello,

I have been required to raise the message size limit on all connections to
20Mbs. We have already seen it cause problems across one of our links.

I know it is dependent on the bandwidth and hardware. I just wanted to get
some ideas of what size limits other companies are using.

Thanks.

Ken Jasa
Messaging Manager
Weber Shandwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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]

RE: Event ID 951

[Gerhart, Steve]

SNA is not running on any of the boxes

-Original Message-
From: Bauschek, Joe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:03 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Event ID 951


HUH? More details would help... if you got SNA 2.x running on any of
the boxes check 
Q148596


Regards,
Joe Bauschek - Network Engineer
Medical Information Management Systems LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




-Original Message-
From: Gerhart, Steve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:56 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Event ID 951


Has anyone ever seen this error (Event ID 951).. Exchange 2000 and 5.5
environment


Steve Gerhart


_
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]

RE: Event ID 951

[Gerhart, Steve]

Here is the actual error message...

When sending mail to following address
*.EDE060DB-CE5F-8D41-B286-EDFA5726C44A, we have found the  connector with
target domain *.EDE060DB-CE5F-8D41-B286-EDFA5726C44A matching destination
address  exists in DS. However, we have no way of getting there. Possibly,
you need  to check your topology and add appropriate connectors among
Routing Groups



-Original Message-
From: Bauschek, Joe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:03 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Event ID 951


HUH? More details would help... if you got SNA 2.x running on any of
the boxes check 
Q148596


Regards,
Joe Bauschek - Network Engineer
Medical Information Management Systems LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




-Original Message-
From: Gerhart, Steve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:56 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Event ID 951


Has anyone ever seen this error (Event ID 951).. Exchange 2000 and 5.5
environment


Steve Gerhart


_
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]

RE: Why corrupt DB?

[Chris Scharff]

There's more than one way to skin a cat as well as corrupt a DB. The type of
data corruption might lend itself to determining a possible root cause...
What was the reported error? (e.g. -1018 = Hardware)

Chris
-- 
Chris Scharff
Senior Sales Engineer
MessageOne
If you can't measure, you can't manage! 


> -Original Message-
> From: Roberto Glavich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:56 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Why corrupt DB?
> 
> 
> We have an Exchange 2k server SP2
> It runs on an Win2k server with Symantec Norton Antivirus 
> Exchange protection.
>  
> On these later days we have had several problem with the 
> exchange db beeing corrupted for no reason. We have moved the 
> db to another physical harddrive but still same problem.
>  
> Now I´m wondering if the Antivirus protection can have 
> something to do with it?
>  
> Any ideas?
>  

_
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]

RE: Reasonable message size limits

[Seitz, Peter]

FTP?

-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


Thanks.

-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


1. We have a dedicated full T-1 to our ISP.
2. We do environmental cleanup at this location, so we do a lot of work with
CAD / Geologic data files that can become quite large in size. 3. Several of
the companies we interact with (labs, subcontractors, etc.) require these
files. 4. Because of the above criteria, we felt that was a reasonable
limit.

-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:26 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


What did you base that number on?

-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


Ours is set to 15mb inbound and outbound.

Jim Blunt

-Original Message-
From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


This is a good question. I have personally limited it to 2MB (except the
directors) with a hard ass approach at first. I will be raising it in a bit
once people remember that they need to be reasonable in what they send (IE
the guy in accounting who tried to email a 98MB file to himself at home). I
am also curious to hear what people are limiting it to.

--
Dustin 


-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: February 27, 2002 12:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Reasonable message size limits



Hello,

I have been required to raise the message size limit on all connections to
20Mbs. We have already seen it cause problems across one of our links.

I know it is dependent on the bandwidth and hardware. I just wanted to get
some ideas of what size limits other companies are using.

Thanks.

Ken Jasa
Messaging Manager
Weber Shandwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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]

_
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]

RE: Event ID 951

[Bauschek, Joe]

HUH? More details would help... if you got SNA 2.x running on any of
the boxes check 
Q148596


Regards,
Joe Bauschek - Network Engineer
Medical Information Management Systems LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




-Original Message-
From: Gerhart, Steve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:56 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Event ID 951


Has anyone ever seen this error (Event ID 951).. Exchange 2000 and 5.5
environment


Steve Gerhart


_
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]

RE: Reasonable message size limits

[Jasa, Ken]

Thanks.

-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


1. We have a dedicated full T-1 to our ISP.
2. We do environmental cleanup at this location, so we do a lot of work with
CAD / Geologic data files that can become quite large in size. 3. Several of
the companies we interact with (labs, subcontractors, etc.) require these
files. 4. Because of the above criteria, we felt that was a reasonable
limit.

-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:26 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


What did you base that number on?

-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


Ours is set to 15mb inbound and outbound.

Jim Blunt

-Original Message-
From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


This is a good question. I have personally limited it to 2MB (except the
directors) with a hard ass approach at first. I will be raising it in a bit
once people remember that they need to be reasonable in what they send (IE
the guy in accounting who tried to email a 98MB file to himself at home). I
am also curious to hear what people are limiting it to.

--
Dustin 


-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: February 27, 2002 12:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Reasonable message size limits



Hello,

I have been required to raise the message size limit on all connections to
20Mbs. We have already seen it cause problems across one of our links.

I know it is dependent on the bandwidth and hardware. I just wanted to get
some ideas of what size limits other companies are using.

Thanks.

Ken Jasa
Messaging Manager
Weber Shandwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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]

_
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]

Why corrupt DB?

[Roberto Glavich]

We have an Exchange 2k server SP2
It runs on an Win2k server with Symantec Norton Antivirus Exchange protection.
 
On these later days we have had several problem with the exchange db beeing corrupted 
for no reason.
We have moved the db to another physical harddrive but still same problem.
 
Now I´m wondering if the Antivirus protection can have something to do with it?
 
Any ideas?
 
Regards,
Roberto
 

_
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]

Event ID 951

[Gerhart, Steve]

Has anyone ever seen this error (Event ID 951).. Exchange 2000 and 5.5
environment


Steve Gerhart


_
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]

RE: How is this possible ?

[Dupler, Craig]

Yes, that's why you do it from the public library.

-Original Message-
From: Mark Rotman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:12 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: How is this possible ?


Actually,

You can skip all the 822 fields and most hosts will allow you to specify the
from as anything. Some may require a valid domain, but it does not need to
be your own. The only giveaway might be the return-path in the header. In
this case the TO will match the 821 rcpt to.

telnet  25
helo FakeServer.com
mail from: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
rcpt to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
data

test message
quit

-Original Message-
From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:54 PM
Subject: RE: How is this possible ?


In the header, all fields are optional, except that one of the three "to"
fields (to, cc, and bcc) has to have something in it.  It does not matter
which one. Delivery can occur if the correct address is in any of the
three, NOT JUST THE "TO" FIELD.  Of the three, mail readers only display
two.  BCC is not displayed.  In fact, you can use a telnet utility to
directly craft a header any way you want it, including leaving the from
field blank of plugging in someone else's address.  Nothing in the RFCs
prevent this.  Not many applications do this deliberately, but you can see
how an anonymous mail host works - yes?

So, if the "to" field has a different address and the "cc" field is blank,
where was the address that caused delivery?  
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:35 AM
Subject: RE: How is this possible ?


Or RFC2821/2822.

I've read them several times and I still don't understand the foundation
technology.  Can't we wipe it clean and start over?


-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 8:44 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: How is this possible ?


I keep telling y'all to read RFCs 821 and 822.  This all becomes a lot
clearer when you understand the foundation technology.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: How is this possible ?


I have a user who received an email where the TO: field showed a
'bellatlantic.net' email address (which he claims he doesn't own).
However, the email showed up on our Exchange server in his Exchange
mailbox (on his 'aim.org' email address)

How is this possible ?

_
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]

RE: Exchange Replication: Newbie question

[Soysal, Serdar]

If it's a small office, put a domain controller/exchange over there and move
their mailboxes to that server.  If it's larger, you may want to use
separate servers.

Serdar Soysal


-Original Message-
From: Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:37 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange Replication: Newbie question


I am using Exchange 5.5 SP4.

I have a single site and a single server. We have a new remote office.  Both
sites are connected via VPN and the remote site is NOT part of the domain
they are using a workgroup.

I need to install an additional Exchange server in the remote office in
order to speed up their email.  I do not want to have to change their email
addresses I just want to setup replication, however I do not want to
replicate all the infromation stores. I want the mailboxes of the remote
users to be replicated only.

Is this possible?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks!



_

Do You Yahoo!?

Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




_
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]

RE: Exchange admin reporting a different mailbox size thanOutloo k cl ient

[Soysal, Serdar]

As far as Exchange is concerned custom forms are no different then regular
e-mail messages, so the custom form theory is not really possible.

Other responders have given good suggestion as to where the "big" items
could be.

S.

-Original Message-
From: MSExchange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 4:04 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange admin reporting a different mailbox size than Outlook cl
ient


Hi.

We are running Exchange 5.5 SP4 on NT4.0 SP6.  If I look at the mailbox
resources of a particular user in the Exchange admin client, it shows me
that she has 22MB worth of data in her mailbox. Our "prohibit send" limit is
set to 20MB and when I go to send a message from her mailbox Outlook rightly
tells me that I cannot do so.  However, the Outlook client tells me she only
has 3MB of data in there.  Has anyone seen this before?

I thought she might have created a custom form and stored it, along with a
lot of data, in her inbox.  Then, she might have deleted the form so we
can't access the data.  Is this a possibilty?  If it is, how can I get to
the data that was in the form and delete it?

Thanks.

--
Leema Lallmamode

_
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]

RE: Reasonable message size limits

[Blunt, James H (Jim)]

1. We have a dedicated full T-1 to our ISP.
2. We do environmental cleanup at this location, so we do a lot of work with
CAD / Geologic data files that can become quite large in size.
3. Several of the companies we interact with (labs, subcontractors, etc.)
require these files.
4. Because of the above criteria, we felt that was a reasonable limit.

-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:26 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


What did you base that number on?

-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


Ours is set to 15mb inbound and outbound.

Jim Blunt

-Original Message-
From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


This is a good question. I have personally limited it to 2MB (except the
directors) with a hard ass approach at first. I will be raising it in a bit
once people remember that they need to be reasonable in what they send (IE
the guy in accounting who tried to email a 98MB file to himself at home). I
am also curious to hear what people are limiting it to.

--
Dustin 


-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: February 27, 2002 12:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Reasonable message size limits



Hello,

I have been required to raise the message size limit on all connections to
20Mbs. We have already seen it cause problems across one of our links.

I know it is dependent on the bandwidth and hardware. I just wanted to get
some ideas of what size limits other companies are using.

Thanks.

Ken Jasa
Messaging Manager
Weber Shandwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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]

RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.

[Soysal, Serdar]

I tend to agree with Ed.  Segregating functions will improve your
reliability (or perceived reliability) a lot more than spreading your user
load.  When you run dedicated mailbox servers, your downtime should be far
less than it would be if you run multi-purpose servers (unless you use
substandard hardware).  

Besides, since we're talking about Exchange 2000 here, you can still spread
your users over multiple databases & storage groups to minimize impact of a
database corruption.  You really wouldn't run into any hardware related
issues if you run good quality hardware and are religious about monitoring
the health of your hardware.  




Serdar Soysal


-Original Message-
From: Reiss, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:07 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.


This logic seems faulty to me in two ways:

1) "How many users you are willing to have without e-mail when it fails"
*is* a valid question.  Even if the total person-minutes of downtimes stays
constant (which I don't agree with either--see next point), having half of
your users unable to work at one time may be very different (for your
business) than having none of them able to work.  My office only has about
200 mailboxes, but we have very high uptime requirements for our business
(we are a trading firm), so I would never consider putting all of these
mailboxes on a single server (they are on 2 currently). At least if one
server goes down, half the users are unaffected.

2) I think your person-minutes calculation is wrong.  More precisely, I
think it is incorrect to assume that if a 2000-user server has 99.95%
uptime, that two 1000-user servers each have 99.95% uptime.  Downtime is
calculated as frequency of "downtime" events (unplanned or planned) and the
duration of those events.  Assuming a scenario that requires a restoral,
consistency check, or some other time-consuming Exchange process, the number
of users (and hence size of the store) are a major factor in determining the
length of the downtime incident. So in effect, by reducing the number of
users on a server, you may be reducing the total downtime
(time-to-recovery). So if time-to-recovery of a 1000-person server is 60% of
time-to-recovery of a 2000-person server, then the total person-minutes of
downtime in the 2 1000-person servers is 2 * 1000 * .0005 * .6 = 315,360
(not 525,600). [If a lot of the downtime is planned and duration is
irrespective of server-size, then this effect is smaller.]

The point about reducing inter-server communications is probably valid, and
it certainly is true that having very many small servers is probably a bad
solution from a reliability standpoint (management is less likely to be as
good).

Peter

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 12:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.


The argument that "It's...how many users you are willing to have without
e-mail when it fails..." is based upon faulty logic.  My rebuttal argument
is thus:

Say you have 2,000 users on one server.  It stays up, say, 99.95% of the
time.  Then you can expect 525,600 person-minutes of downtime per year
(262.8 minutes times 2,000 users).

Say you have 1,000 users on each of two servers.  Each stays up, say, 99.95%
of the time.  Then on each box you can expect 262,800 person-minutes of
downtime per year for each machine, the aggregate being 525,600
person-minutes.

Each scenario has the same amount of person-minutes of downtime.  The
argument that more mailbox servers increases reliability would logically
extend to the point where maximum reliability is achieved by giving each
user his own Exchange mailbox server.  Of course, it is obvious 2,000
servers for 2,000 users will not increase reliability.  A failure of a
single server will only affect one user, but you now have 2,000 such servers
failing occasionally.

One could argue that having fewer mailbox servers will actually improve
reliability because there is less inter-server communication.

I do buy the argument that splitting off functions to separate servers can
improve reliability because these functions can cause the mailbox server to
fail.  Overall system reliability may not change, but perceived reliability
will be higher.  For example, if you have problems with an SMTP Connector,
you might have to take an outage on the server to fix it.  If the SMTP
Connector is on a separate box, it's likely that a brief failure won't even
be noticed by users, but if you have to cycle the mailbox server, far more
will notice.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stewart Jump
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 3:58 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchang

RE: Reasonable message size limits

[Mario Fernandez]

At that size you should also consider AT&T or some bandwidth provider.

 
Mario Fernandez
Network Administrator
DataSynapse
632 Broadway 5th Floor
New York, NY 10012
tel. (212) 842-8849
fax. (212) 842-8843
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  

View the DataSynapse email disclaimer here:
  e-mail disclaimer  


-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 15:34
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


I limit mine to 500mb. I own stock in Segate.

_
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com


_
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]

RE: Reasonable message size limits

[Exchange Discussions]

It's 1024(k) to 1 (mb) right?

And actually - is there a way to set the size limit globally, and then just
remove or modify the few that require it?
--
Dustin 

-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: February 27, 2002 12:26 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


What did you base that number on?

-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


Ours is set to 15mb inbound and outbound.

Jim Blunt

-Original Message-
From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


This is a good question. I have personally limited it to 2MB (except the
directors) with a hard ass approach at first. I will be raising it in a bit
once people remember that they need to be reasonable in what they send (IE
the guy in accounting who tried to email a 98MB file to himself at home). I
am also curious to hear what people are limiting it to.

--
Dustin 


-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: February 27, 2002 12:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Reasonable message size limits



Hello,

I have been required to raise the message size limit on all connections to
20Mbs. We have already seen it cause problems across one of our links.

I know it is dependent on the bandwidth and hardware. I just wanted to get
some ideas of what size limits other companies are using.

Thanks.

Ken Jasa
Messaging Manager
Weber Shandwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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]

RE: Reasonable message size limits

[Tony Hlabse]

I limit mine to 500mb. I own stock in Segate.

_
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com


_
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]

RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.

[Chris Scharff]

> So if time-to-recovery of a 1000-person 
> server is 60% of time-to-recovery of a 2000-person server,

  

Isn't doing something in 60% of the time *twice* equal to 120% or 20% more
total downtime?



_
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]

RE: Reasonable message size limits

[Jasa, Ken]

What did you base that number on?

-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


Ours is set to 15mb inbound and outbound.

Jim Blunt

-Original Message-
From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


This is a good question. I have personally limited it to 2MB (except the
directors) with a hard ass approach at first. I will be raising it in a bit
once people remember that they need to be reasonable in what they send (IE
the guy in accounting who tried to email a 98MB file to himself at home). I
am also curious to hear what people are limiting it to.

--
Dustin 


-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: February 27, 2002 12:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Reasonable message size limits



Hello,

I have been required to raise the message size limit on all connections to
20Mbs. We have already seen it cause problems across one of our links.

I know it is dependent on the bandwidth and hardware. I just wanted to get
some ideas of what size limits other companies are using.

Thanks.

Ken Jasa
Messaging Manager
Weber Shandwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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]

RE: Reasonable message size limits

[Blunt, James H (Jim)]

Ours is set to 15mb inbound and outbound.

Jim Blunt

-Original Message-
From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reasonable message size limits


This is a good question. I have personally limited it to 2MB (except the
directors) with a hard ass approach at first. I will be raising it in a bit
once people remember that they need to be reasonable in what they send (IE
the guy in accounting who tried to email a 98MB file to himself at home). I
am also curious to hear what people are limiting it to.

--
Dustin 


-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: February 27, 2002 12:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Reasonable message size limits



Hello,

I have been required to raise the message size limit on all connections to
20Mbs. We have already seen it cause problems across one of our links.

I know it is dependent on the bandwidth and hardware. I just wanted to get
some ideas of what size limits other companies are using.

Thanks.

Ken Jasa
Messaging Manager
Weber Shandwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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]

RE: Event 123 and server down!

[Chris Scharff]

Might try reloading it, don't see how it could hurt.

Chris
-- 
Chris Scharff
Senior Sales Engineer
MessageOne
If you can't measure, you can't manage! 


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:12 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Event 123 and server down!
> 
> 
> Thanks Chris,
> while I wait for PSS Italy to wake up tomorrow morning, might 
> I try to re-load SP4 (no hot-fixes were loaded) or better 
> leave it as it is now?
> 
> Alberto
> 
> > Sounds like possibly a SP or hotfix version mismatch. I'd 
> call PSS if 
> > it's a production box as time == money.
> > 
> > Chris
> > --
> > Chris Scharff
> > Senior Sales Engineer
> > MessageOne
> > If you can't measure, you can't manage! 
> > 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:27 PM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: Event 123 and server down!
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi all,
> > > I'm getting the following errors on MSX 5.5 SP4 and the store 
> > > doesn't start.
> > > 
> > > I spent all day on Technet and reading the MSX Disaster
> > > Recovery Guide, but didn't find useful informations on the 
> > > "log version stamp" error, so I decided to make an offline 
> > > backup of the stores, and then a restore of the last PRIV and 
> > > PUB stores (backed up last Saturday), plus the differential 
> > > backed up last night.  Unfortunately the store still 
> doesn't start.
> > > 
> > > BEFORE RESTORE
> > > ==
> > > Application Log:
> > > 1) 27/02/02   14.24.15ESE97   Error   Logging/Recovery
> > >   123 N/A SERVER3 MSExchangeIS (477) Log version 
> > > stamp does not match
> > > database engine version stamp.
> > > 2) 27/02/02   14.24.15MSExchangeISError   General 
> > >   1120N/A SERVER3 Error
> > > 0xfdfe initializing the Microsoft Exchange Server
> > > Information Store database.
> > > 3) 27/02/02   14.24.15MSExchangeISError   General 
> > >   5000N/A SERVER3 Unable
> > > to initialize the Microsoft Exchange Information Store 
> > > service. Error 0xfdfe.
> > > 
> > > System Log:
> > > 1) 27/02/02   14.24.15Service Control
> > > Manager   Error   None7024N/A SERVER3 The 
> > > Microsoft Exchange Information
> > > Store service terminated with service-specific error 4294966782.
> > > 
> > > AFTER RESTORE
> > > =
> > > Application Log:
> > > 1) 27/02/02   19.18.13ESE97   Error   
> > > Logging/Recovery  123 N/A SERVER3  (512)
> > > Log version stamp does not match database engine version stamp.
> > > 2) 27/02/02   19.18.13MSExchangeISError   
> > > Recovery  1081N/A SERVER3 Unable
> > > to recover the database because error 0xc8000202 occurred
> > > after a restore operation.
> > > 3) 27/02/02   19.18.13MSExchangeISError   General 
> > >   5000N/A SERVER3 Unable
> > > to initialize the Microsoft Exchange Information Store 
> > > service. Error 0xc8000202.
> > > 
> > > System Log:
> > > 1) 27/02/02   19.18.13Service Control
> > > Manager   Error   None7024N/A SERVER3 The 
> > > Microsoft Exchange Information
> > > Store service terminated with service-specific error 3355443714.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > System is MSX 5.5 SP4 on SBS 4.5 (NT4 SP6a).  I was running
> > > Exchange Optimizer and it hung attemping to restart the store 
> > > service.  Trend ScanMail 3.8 was temporarily disabled as I 
> > > was invesigating for crashes possibly due to ScanMail.
> > > 
> > > After several months of good operation ScanMail 3.6 caused me
> > > some bad store crashes that I have always been able to 
> > > recover from backups.  After having loaded ScanMail 3.8 
> > > everything went fine for a week, until today...
> > > 
> > > Can anybody give some good recommendations that I can try
> > > tonight (it's 8 pm in Italy), or should I make "that" call to 
> > > PSS in the morning?
> > > 
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > > Alberto
> 
> _
> 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]

RE: Reasonable message size limits

[Exchange Discussions]

This is a good question. I have personally limited it to 2MB (except the
directors) with a hard ass approach at first. I will be raising it in a bit
once people remember that they need to be reasonable in what they send (IE
the guy in accounting who tried to email a 98MB file to himself at home). I
am also curious to hear what people are limiting it to.

--
Dustin 


-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: February 27, 2002 12:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Reasonable message size limits



Hello,

I have been required to raise the message size limit on all connections to
20Mbs. We have already seen it cause problems across one of our links.

I know it is dependent on the bandwidth and hardware. I just wanted to get
some ideas of what size limits other companies are using.

Thanks.

Ken Jasa
Messaging Manager
Weber Shandwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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]

RE: Burning PST files.

[Soysal, Serdar]

Yeah, but all American PSTs are manufactured in Taiwan.

Serdar Soysal


-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:46 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Burning PST files.


Buy American!


-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:05 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Burning PST files.


File --> Open --> Personal Folder Files (.pst).

No import necessary.

William


-Original Message-
From: Ford, Rebecca [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 1:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Burning PST files.


Yep...it works, you just have to import them back in order to view them. You
cannot just copy them back in order to view them.  




-Original Message-
From: McCready, Robert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: February 26, 2002 1:57 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Burning PST files.


Is it possible to burn PST files to a CD and still use them?  We have some
users with very large PST files that are gobbling up server space.  We tried
burning a PST file to a CD, but we were then unable to access it. Even after
copying the file back to their home drive and trying to take ownership of
it.  Has anybody had any success with this?

Exchange 5.5 SP4, NT 4.0 SP6.

Thanks.

Robert

_
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]


--
The information contained in this email message is privileged and
confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or
entity to whom it is addressed.  If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you have
received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler
Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message.  Thank you.


==


_
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]

RE: Bridgeheads on the DMZ

[Soysal, Serdar]

OMG.  Follow Ed's advice for a proper setup.  After you're done, fire your
security manager who doesn't have a clue about security.

Serdar Soysal


-Original Message-
From: Sagert, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:47 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Bridgeheads on the DMZ


He feels that having the Bridgeheads receive SMTP mail on the internal
network poses a security problem. Of course the Bridgehead is using a NAT ip
address but he wants to lock it down further. 

-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:45 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Bridgeheads on the DMZ


What is his/her logic?


-Original Message-
From: Sagert, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 4:12 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Bridgeheads on the DMZ


Hello All:

Exchange 5.5 sp4 W2k

We have a new Security manager who wants to put our SMTP only Bridgeheads
out on the DMZ.  I don't feel comfortable with this and was wondering if any
of you had done this and ran across any gotcha's? 

TIA
Lori Sagert

gedasUSA, Inc./Volkswagen of America
NT/Exchange Administrator
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326
USA
phone   +1-248-754-6401
telefax +1-248-754-6399
Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gedas.net





_
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]


--
The information contained in this email message is privileged and
confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or
entity to whom it is addressed.  If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you have
received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler
Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message.  Thank you.


==


_
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]

RE: Event 123 and server down!

[Alberto]

Thanks Chris,
while I wait for PSS Italy to wake up tomorrow morning, might I try to
re-load SP4 (no hot-fixes were loaded) or better leave it as it is now?

Alberto

> Sounds like possibly a SP or hotfix version mismatch. I'd call PSS if it's a
> production box as time == money.
> 
> Chris
> -- 
> Chris Scharff
> Senior Sales Engineer
> MessageOne
> If you can't measure, you can't manage! 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:27 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Event 123 and server down!
> > 
> > 
> > Hi all, 
> > I'm getting the following errors on MSX 5.5 SP4 and the store 
> > doesn't start.
> > 
> > I spent all day on Technet and reading the MSX Disaster 
> > Recovery Guide, but didn't find useful informations on the 
> > "log version stamp" error, so I decided to make an offline 
> > backup of the stores, and then a restore of the last PRIV and 
> > PUB stores (backed up last Saturday), plus the differential 
> > backed up last night.  Unfortunately the store still doesn't start.
> > 
> > BEFORE RESTORE
> > ==
> > Application Log:
> > 1) 27/02/02 14.24.15ESE97   Error   Logging/Recovery
> > 123 N/A SERVER3 MSExchangeIS (477) Log version 
> > stamp does not match
> > database engine version stamp.
> > 2) 27/02/02 14.24.15MSExchangeISError   General 
> > 1120N/A SERVER3 Error
> > 0xfdfe initializing the Microsoft Exchange Server 
> > Information Store database.
> > 3) 27/02/02 14.24.15MSExchangeISError   General 
> > 5000N/A SERVER3 Unable
> > to initialize the Microsoft Exchange Information Store 
> > service. Error 0xfdfe.
> > 
> > System Log:
> > 1) 27/02/02 14.24.15Service Control
> > Manager Error   None7024N/A SERVER3 The 
> > Microsoft Exchange Information
> > Store service terminated with service-specific error 4294966782.
> > 
> > AFTER RESTORE
> > =
> > Application Log:
> > 1) 27/02/02 19.18.13ESE97   Error   
> > Logging/Recovery123 N/A SERVER3  (512)
> > Log version stamp does not match database engine version stamp.
> > 2) 27/02/02 19.18.13MSExchangeISError   
> > Recovery1081N/A SERVER3 Unable
> > to recover the database because error 0xc8000202 occurred 
> > after a restore operation.
> > 3) 27/02/02 19.18.13MSExchangeISError   General 
> > 5000N/A SERVER3 Unable
> > to initialize the Microsoft Exchange Information Store 
> > service. Error 0xc8000202.
> > 
> > System Log:
> > 1) 27/02/02 19.18.13Service Control
> > Manager Error   None7024N/A SERVER3 The 
> > Microsoft Exchange Information
> > Store service terminated with service-specific error 3355443714.
> > 
> > 
> > System is MSX 5.5 SP4 on SBS 4.5 (NT4 SP6a).  I was running 
> > Exchange Optimizer and it hung attemping to restart the store 
> > service.  Trend ScanMail 3.8 was temporarily disabled as I 
> > was invesigating for crashes possibly due to ScanMail.
> > 
> > After several months of good operation ScanMail 3.6 caused me 
> > some bad store crashes that I have always been able to 
> > recover from backups.  After having loaded ScanMail 3.8 
> > everything went fine for a week, until today...
> > 
> > Can anybody give some good recommendations that I can try 
> > tonight (it's 8 pm in Italy), or should I make "that" call to 
> > PSS in the morning?
> > 
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Alberto

_
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]

RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.

[Reiss, Peter]

This logic seems faulty to me in two ways:

1) "How many users you are willing to have without e-mail when it
fails" *is* a valid question.  Even if the total person-minutes of
downtimes stays constant (which I don't agree with either--see
next point), having half of your users unable to work at one time
may be very different (for your business) than having none of
them able to work.  My office only has about 200 mailboxes, but
we have very high uptime requirements for our business (we
are a trading firm), so I would never consider putting all of
these mailboxes on a single server (they are on 2 currently).
At least if one server goes down, half the users are
unaffected.

2) I think your person-minutes calculation is wrong.  More
precisely, I think it is incorrect to assume that if a
2000-user server has 99.95% uptime, that two 1000-user
servers each have 99.95% uptime.  Downtime is calculated
as frequency of "downtime" events (unplanned or planned)
and the duration of those events.  Assuming a scenario
that requires a restoral, consistency check, or some
other time-consuming Exchange process, the number of
users (and hence size of the store) are a major factor
in determining the length of the downtime incident.
So in effect, by reducing the number of users on a server,
you may be reducing the total downtime (time-to-recovery).
So if time-to-recovery of a 1000-person server is 60%
of time-to-recovery of a 2000-person server, then the
total person-minutes of downtime in the 2 1000-person
servers is 2 * 1000 * .0005 * .6 = 315,360 (not 525,600).
[If a lot of the downtime is planned and duration is
irrespective of server-size, then this effect is smaller.]

The point about reducing inter-server communications is probably
valid, and it certainly is true that having very many small
servers is probably a bad solution from a reliability
standpoint (management is less likely to be as good).

Peter

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 12:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.


The argument that "It's...how many users you are willing to have without
e-mail when it fails..." is based upon faulty logic.  My rebuttal
argument is thus:

Say you have 2,000 users on one server.  It stays up, say, 99.95% of the
time.  Then you can expect 525,600 person-minutes of downtime per year
(262.8 minutes times 2,000 users).

Say you have 1,000 users on each of two servers.  Each stays up, say,
99.95% of the time.  Then on each box you can expect 262,800
person-minutes of downtime per year for each machine, the aggregate
being 525,600 person-minutes.

Each scenario has the same amount of person-minutes of downtime.  The
argument that more mailbox servers increases reliability would logically
extend to the point where maximum reliability is achieved by giving each
user his own Exchange mailbox server.  Of course, it is obvious 2,000
servers for 2,000 users will not increase reliability.  A failure of a
single server will only affect one user, but you now have 2,000 such
servers failing occasionally.

One could argue that having fewer mailbox servers will actually improve
reliability because there is less inter-server communication.

I do buy the argument that splitting off functions to separate servers
can improve reliability because these functions can cause the mailbox
server to fail.  Overall system reliability may not change, but
perceived reliability will be higher.  For example, if you have problems
with an SMTP Connector, you might have to take an outage on the server
to fix it.  If the SMTP Connector is on a separate box, it's likely that
a brief failure won't even be noticed by users, but if you have to cycle
the mailbox server, far more will notice.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stewart Jump
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 3:58 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.


Its not so much how many users a box can support but how many users you
are willing to have without email when it fails and how long you are
wiling to sit there while restoring the server. 3000 users @2MB is only
60GB. Assuming you have an LTO tape drive (100GB native + compression at
?:1) then you could probably get 6000 users on a server and back it up
to one tape, which makes running a full backup every night a lot easier.
Our test suggest a restore time of around 800 to 1000 MB / Min so
restore times aren't to long either.

As for how much CPU and RAM you need it is really a guess as you can sit
in the lab for ages doing LoadSim tests, and still get it wrong in the
real world due to changing patterns of usage with the new features. Our
test's with the latest LoadSim version on a system with dual CPU 700Mhz
PIII

Reasonable message size limits

[Jasa, Ken]

Hello,

I have been required to raise the message size limit on all connections to
20Mbs. We have already seen it cause problems across one of our links.

I know it is dependent on the bandwidth and hardware. I just wanted to get
some ideas of what size limits other companies are using.

Thanks.

Ken Jasa
Messaging Manager
Weber Shandwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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]

RE: Exchange 2000 Global Address List modification

[Chris Scharff]

So, you don't want contacts to be addressable? How the 'GAL' is created is
covered in the E2K FAQ I believe.

Chris
-- 
Chris Scharff
Senior Sales Engineer
MessageOne
If you can't measure, you can't manage! 


> -Original Message-
> From: Clarke, Ronald L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 11:43 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Exchange 2000 Global Address List modification
> 
> 
> Is anyone familiar with how to modify the default Global 
> Address list filter rule within Exchange 2000?
> 
> Currently I have a large number of Active Directory Contacts 
> that show up in there designated Address List, but I would 
> like to have them excluded when you are looking at the Global 
> Address list.

_
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]

RE: Event 123 and server down!

[Chris Scharff]

Sounds like possibly a SP or hotfix version mismatch. I'd call PSS if it's a
production box as time == money.

Chris
-- 
Chris Scharff
Senior Sales Engineer
MessageOne
If you can't measure, you can't manage! 


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:27 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Event 123 and server down!
> 
> 
> Hi all, 
> I'm getting the following errors on MSX 5.5 SP4 and the store 
> doesn't start.
> 
> I spent all day on Technet and reading the MSX Disaster 
> Recovery Guide, but didn't find useful informations on the 
> "log version stamp" error, so I decided to make an offline 
> backup of the stores, and then a restore of the last PRIV and 
> PUB stores (backed up last Saturday), plus the differential 
> backed up last night.  Unfortunately the store still doesn't start.
> 
> BEFORE RESTORE
> ==
> Application Log:
> 1) 27/02/02   14.24.15ESE97   Error   Logging/Recovery
>   123 N/A SERVER3 MSExchangeIS (477) Log version 
> stamp does not match
> database engine version stamp.
> 2) 27/02/02   14.24.15MSExchangeISError   General 
>   1120N/A SERVER3 Error
> 0xfdfe initializing the Microsoft Exchange Server 
> Information Store database.
> 3) 27/02/02   14.24.15MSExchangeISError   General 
>   5000N/A SERVER3 Unable
> to initialize the Microsoft Exchange Information Store 
> service. Error 0xfdfe.
> 
> System Log:
> 1) 27/02/02   14.24.15Service Control
> Manager   Error   None7024N/A SERVER3 The 
> Microsoft Exchange Information
> Store service terminated with service-specific error 4294966782.
> 
> AFTER RESTORE
> =
> Application Log:
> 1) 27/02/02   19.18.13ESE97   Error   
> Logging/Recovery  123 N/A SERVER3  (512)
> Log version stamp does not match database engine version stamp.
> 2) 27/02/02   19.18.13MSExchangeISError   
> Recovery  1081N/A SERVER3 Unable
> to recover the database because error 0xc8000202 occurred 
> after a restore operation.
> 3) 27/02/02   19.18.13MSExchangeISError   General 
>   5000N/A SERVER3 Unable
> to initialize the Microsoft Exchange Information Store 
> service. Error 0xc8000202.
> 
> System Log:
> 1) 27/02/02   19.18.13Service Control
> Manager   Error   None7024N/A SERVER3 The 
> Microsoft Exchange Information
> Store service terminated with service-specific error 3355443714.
> 
> 
> System is MSX 5.5 SP4 on SBS 4.5 (NT4 SP6a).  I was running 
> Exchange Optimizer and it hung attemping to restart the store 
> service.  Trend ScanMail 3.8 was temporarily disabled as I 
> was invesigating for crashes possibly due to ScanMail.
> 
> After several months of good operation ScanMail 3.6 caused me 
> some bad store crashes that I have always been able to 
> recover from backups.  After having loaded ScanMail 3.8 
> everything went fine for a week, until today...
> 
> Can anybody give some good recommendations that I can try 
> tonight (it's 8 pm in Italy), or should I make "that" call to 
> PSS in the morning?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Alberto

_
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]

RE: How is this possible ?

[Dupler, Craig]

One cupie doll to the customer in the argyle sweater.

-Original Message-
From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:40 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: How is this possible ?



So I guess this user used the BCC field to send email to this person. 

-Original Message-
From: Dupler, Craig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: How is this possible ?


In the header, all fields are optional, except that one of the three "to"
fields (to, cc, and bcc) has to have something in it.  It does not matter
which one. Delivery can occur if the correct address is in any of the
three, NOT JUST THE "TO" FIELD.  Of the three, mail readers only display
two.  BCC is not displayed.  In fact, you can use a telnet utility to
directly craft a header any way you want it, including leaving the from
field blank or plugging in someone else's address.  Nothing in the RFCs
prevent this.  Not many applications do this deliberately, but you can see
how an anonymous mail host works - yes?

So, if the "to" field has a different address and the "cc" field is blank,
where was the address that caused delivery? 
 

-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:35 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: How is this possible ?


Or RFC2821/2822.

I've read them several times and I still don't understand the foundation
technology.  Can't we wipe it clean and start over?


-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 8:44 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: How is this possible ?


I keep telling y'all to read RFCs 821 and 822.  This all becomes a lot
clearer when you understand the foundation technology.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of RBHATIA
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: How is this possible ?


I have a user who received an email where the TO: field showed a
'bellatlantic.net' email address (which he claims he doesn't own).
However, the email showed up on our Exchange server in his Exchange
mailbox (on his 'aim.org' email address)

How is this possible ?

_
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]

RE: deletion lockups

[Chris Scharff]

Run performance optimizer.

Chris
-- 
Chris Scharff
Senior Sales Engineer
MessageOne
If you can't measure, you can't manage! 


> -Original Message-
> From: Troy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 4:11 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: deletion lockups
> 
> 
> When multiple messages are selected for deleting, moving, etc.. , my
> exchange mailbox on client machine locks up.   Exchange 5.5 on Windows
> 2000.

_
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]

RE: Native or not?

[Woodruff, Michael]

Thanks for the help.  Very much needed.  This upgrade has a lot of stuff to
think about.

-Original Message-
From: Grant, Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:36 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Native or not?


yes

-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:31 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Native or not?


Universal Security Groups can be mail enabled correct?

-Original Message-
From: Grant, Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:06 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Native or not?


You don't have to be in native mode to do the install of E2K but you will
need a native mode domain to host any DLs that are being used to access
public folders. 

You state that you will be installing into the same 5.5 org so presumably
you will be using the ADC to populate AD. When you do that DLs will be
brought over as universal distribution groups. If the DLs are used to access
public folders they will need to be converted to universal security groups.
This is done automatically, but only if they are in a native mode domain.

So while you don't need to be in native mode to do the install, you may need
at least one native mode domain for the DLs. 


-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:18 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Native or not?


Hello,

I have been told that you need to be running in Native mode
(Windows2k) to upgrade to Exch2k.  We are running 5.5 and are getting ready
to go to 2k.  We will be installing new server on new hardware in some 5.5
Org.  Do we need to be running in Native Mode first on AD?



Thanks 

_
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]

RE: Native or not?

[Grant, Fred]

yes

-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:31 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Native or not?


Universal Security Groups can be mail enabled correct?

-Original Message-
From: Grant, Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:06 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Native or not?


You don't have to be in native mode to do the install of E2K but you
will
need a native mode domain to host any DLs that are being used to access
public folders. 

You state that you will be installing into the same 5.5 org so
presumably
you will be using the ADC to populate AD. When you do that DLs will be
brought over as universal distribution groups. If the DLs are used to
access
public folders they will need to be converted to universal security
groups.
This is done automatically, but only if they are in a native mode
domain.

So while you don't need to be in native mode to do the install, you may
need
at least one native mode domain for the DLs. 


-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:18 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Native or not?


Hello,

I have been told that you need to be running in Native mode
(Windows2k) to upgrade to Exch2k.  We are running 5.5 and are getting
ready
to go to 2k.  We will be installing new server on new hardware in some
5.5
Org.  Do we need to be running in Native Mode first on AD?



Thanks 

_
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]

RE: Native or not?

[Woodruff, Michael]

Universal Security Groups can be mail enabled correct?

-Original Message-
From: Grant, Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:06 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Native or not?


You don't have to be in native mode to do the install of E2K but you will
need a native mode domain to host any DLs that are being used to access
public folders. 

You state that you will be installing into the same 5.5 org so presumably
you will be using the ADC to populate AD. When you do that DLs will be
brought over as universal distribution groups. If the DLs are used to access
public folders they will need to be converted to universal security groups.
This is done automatically, but only if they are in a native mode domain.

So while you don't need to be in native mode to do the install, you may need
at least one native mode domain for the DLs. 


-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:18 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Native or not?


Hello,

I have been told that you need to be running in Native mode
(Windows2k) to upgrade to Exch2k.  We are running 5.5 and are getting ready
to go to 2k.  We will be installing new server on new hardware in some 5.5
Org.  Do we need to be running in Native Mode first on AD?



Thanks 

_
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]

Event 123 and server down!

[Alberto]

Hi all, 
I'm getting the following errors on MSX 5.5 SP4 and the store doesn't
start.

I spent all day on Technet and reading the MSX Disaster Recovery Guide,
but didn't find useful informations on the "log version stamp" error, so I
decided to make an offline backup of the stores, and then a restore of the
last PRIV and PUB stores (backed up last Saturday), plus the differential
backed up last night.  Unfortunately the store still doesn't start.

BEFORE RESTORE
==
Application Log:
1) 27/02/02 14.24.15ESE97   Error   Logging/Recovery
123 N/A SERVER3 MSExchangeIS (477) Log version stamp does not match
database engine version stamp.
2) 27/02/02 14.24.15MSExchangeISError   General 1120N/A
 SERVER3 Error
0xfdfe initializing the Microsoft Exchange Server Information Store
database.
3) 27/02/02 14.24.15MSExchangeISError   General 5000N/A
 SERVER3 Unable
to initialize the Microsoft Exchange Information Store service. Error
0xfdfe.

System Log:
1) 27/02/02 14.24.15Service Control
Manager Error   None7024N/A SERVER3 The Microsoft Exchange Information
Store service terminated with service-specific error 4294966782.

AFTER RESTORE
=
Application Log:
1) 27/02/02 19.18.13ESE97   Error   Logging/Recovery123 N/A
 SERVER3  (512)
Log version stamp does not match database engine version stamp.
2) 27/02/02 19.18.13MSExchangeISError   Recovery1081N/A
 SERVER3 Unable
to recover the database because error 0xc8000202 occurred after a restore
operation.
3) 27/02/02 19.18.13MSExchangeISError   General 5000N/A
 SERVER3 Unable
to initialize the Microsoft Exchange Information Store service. Error
0xc8000202.

System Log:
1) 27/02/02 19.18.13Service Control
Manager Error   None7024N/A SERVER3 The Microsoft Exchange Information
Store service terminated with service-specific error 3355443714.


System is MSX 5.5 SP4 on SBS 4.5 (NT4 SP6a).  I was running Exchange
Optimizer and it hung attemping to restart the store service.  Trend
ScanMail 3.8 was temporarily disabled as I was invesigating for crashes
possibly due to ScanMail.

After several months of good operation ScanMail 3.6 caused me some bad
store crashes that I have always been able to recover from backups.  After
having loaded ScanMail 3.8 everything went fine for a week, until today...

Can anybody give some good recommendations that I can try tonight (it's 8
pm in Italy), or should I make "that" call to PSS in the morning?

Thanks in advance,
Alberto

_
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]

RE: Native or not?

[Grant, Fred]

You don't have to be in native mode to do the install of E2K but you
will need a native mode domain to host any DLs that are being used to
access public folders. 

You state that you will be installing into the same 5.5 org so
presumably you will be using the ADC to populate AD. When you do that
DLs will be brought over as universal distribution groups. If the DLs
are used to access public folders they will need to be converted to
universal security groups. This is done automatically, but only if they
are in a native mode domain.

So while you don't need to be in native mode to do the install, you may
need at least one native mode domain for the DLs. 


-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:18 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Native or not?


Hello,

I have been told that you need to be running in Native mode
(Windows2k) to upgrade to Exch2k.  We are running 5.5 and are getting
ready
to go to 2k.  We will be installing new server on new hardware in some
5.5
Org.  Do we need to be running in Native Mode first on AD?



Thanks 

_
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]

RE: How is this possible ?

[RBHATIA]

So I guess this user used the BCC field to send email to this person. 

-Original Message-
From: Dupler, Craig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: How is this possible ?


In the header, all fields are optional, except that one of the three "to"
fields (to, cc, and bcc) has to have something in it.  It does not matter
which one. Delivery can occur if the correct address is in any of the
three, NOT JUST THE "TO" FIELD.  Of the three, mail readers only display
two.  BCC is not displayed.  In fact, you can use a telnet utility to
directly craft a header any way you want it, including leaving the from
field blank of plugging in someone else's address.  Nothing in the RFCs
prevent this.  Not many applications do this deliberately, but you can see
how an anonymous mail host works - yes?

So, if the "to" field has a different address and the "cc" field is blank,
where was the address that caused delivery? 
 

-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:35 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: How is this possible ?


Or RFC2821/2822.

I've read them several times and I still don't understand the foundation
technology.  Can't we wipe it clean and start over?


-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 8:44 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: How is this possible ?


I keep telling y'all to read RFCs 821 and 822.  This all becomes a lot
clearer when you understand the foundation technology.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of RBHATIA
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: How is this possible ?


I have a user who received an email where the TO: field showed a
'bellatlantic.net' email address (which he claims he doesn't own).
However, the email showed up on our Exchange server in his Exchange
mailbox (on his 'aim.org' email address)

How is this possible ?

_
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]

RE: How is this possible ?

[Mark Rotman]

Actually,

You can skip all the 822 fields and most hosts will allow you to specify the
from as anything. Some may require a valid domain, but it does not need to
be your own. The only giveaway might be the return-path in the header. In
this case the TO will match the 821 rcpt to.

telnet  25
helo FakeServer.com
mail from: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
rcpt to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
data

test message
quit

-Original Message-
From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:54 PM
Subject: RE: How is this possible ?


In the header, all fields are optional, except that one of the three "to"
fields (to, cc, and bcc) has to have something in it.  It does not matter
which one. Delivery can occur if the correct address is in any of the
three, NOT JUST THE "TO" FIELD.  Of the three, mail readers only display
two.  BCC is not displayed.  In fact, you can use a telnet utility to
directly craft a header any way you want it, including leaving the from
field blank of plugging in someone else's address.  Nothing in the RFCs
prevent this.  Not many applications do this deliberately, but you can see
how an anonymous mail host works - yes?

So, if the "to" field has a different address and the "cc" field is blank,
where was the address that caused delivery?  
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:35 AM
Subject: RE: How is this possible ?


Or RFC2821/2822.

I've read them several times and I still don't understand the foundation
technology.  Can't we wipe it clean and start over?


-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 8:44 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: How is this possible ?


I keep telling y'all to read RFCs 821 and 822.  This all becomes a lot
clearer when you understand the foundation technology.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: How is this possible ?


I have a user who received an email where the TO: field showed a
'bellatlantic.net' email address (which he claims he doesn't own).
However, the email showed up on our Exchange server in his Exchange
mailbox (on his 'aim.org' email address)

How is this possible ?

_
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]

RE: How is this possible ?

[Dupler, Craig]

In the header, all fields are optional, except that one of the three "to"
fields (to, cc, and bcc) has to have something in it.  It does not matter
which one. Delivery can occur if the correct address is in any of the
three, NOT JUST THE "TO" FIELD.  Of the three, mail readers only display
two.  BCC is not displayed.  In fact, you can use a telnet utility to
directly craft a header any way you want it, including leaving the from
field blank of plugging in someone else's address.  Nothing in the RFCs
prevent this.  Not many applications do this deliberately, but you can see
how an anonymous mail host works - yes?

So, if the "to" field has a different address and the "cc" field is blank,
where was the address that caused delivery? 
 

-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:35 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: How is this possible ?


Or RFC2821/2822.

I've read them several times and I still don't understand the foundation
technology.  Can't we wipe it clean and start over?


-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 8:44 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: How is this possible ?


I keep telling y'all to read RFCs 821 and 822.  This all becomes a lot
clearer when you understand the foundation technology.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of RBHATIA
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: How is this possible ?


I have a user who received an email where the TO: field showed a
'bellatlantic.net' email address (which he claims he doesn't own).
However, the email showed up on our Exchange server in his Exchange
mailbox (on his 'aim.org' email address)

How is this possible ?

_
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]

RE: How is this possible ?

[Roger Seielstad]

Perzactly...

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Peregrine Systems
Atlanta, GA


> -Original Message-
> From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:39 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: How is this possible ?
> 
> 
> After reading them and (I think) understanding them, I'm 
> amazed that e-mail flows at all.
> 
> Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
> Tech Consultant
> Compaq Computer Corporation
> Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of 
> William Lefkovics
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:35 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: How is this possible ?
> 
> 
> Or RFC2821/2822.
> 
> I've read them several times and I still don't understand the 
> foundation technology.  Can't we wipe it clean and start over?
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 8:44 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: How is this possible ?
> 
> 
> I keep telling y'all to read RFCs 821 and 822.  This all 
> becomes a lot clearer when you understand the foundation technology.
> 
> Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
> Tech Consultant
> Compaq Computer Corporation
> Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of RBHATIA
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:42 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: How is this possible ?
> 
> 
> I have a user who received an email where the TO: field 
> showed a 'bellatlantic.net' email address (which he claims he 
> doesn't own). However, the email showed up on our Exchange 
> server in his Exchange mailbox (on his 'aim.org' email address)
> 
> How is this possible ?
> 
> _
> 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]