RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
Quite a lot of info has been posted to the following web page: http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/support/e2k3owa.asp David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 9:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw? But, one could argue that this should have been a documented scenario... I'm not saying one way or the other. Just that it has taken an interesting turn. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David N. Precht Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 9:05 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw? But... A preliminary investigation by Microsoft indicated that the issue occurs only with Kerberos authentication disabled, which the vendor said is uncommon. We recommend that our customers ensure that Kerberos authentication is enabled, which is the default configuration, Microsoft said in a statement Friday. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 11:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw? This has taken a new turn... http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/21/HNmsflaw_1.html -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Woodruff, Michael Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 9:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw? Not that I am aware of. My boss just passed it on to me. I'm not a participate in that list. I just thought it was odd since that would be a huge flaw and Microsoft or anyone for that matter has said nothing. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw? All seriousness aside, I know nothing about this issue. I'm inferring from the other responses to this thread that if two MVPs have no knowledge of the issue it probably doesn't exist. Mike W: Were there any follow-up posts on NTBUGTRAQ about this? -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw? I saw a posting about it on NTBUGTRAQ.COM. Some guy had to shut off OWA indefinitely because of the issue. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw? So you have seen this? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw? That's because Microsoft knows of the issue but does not have a fix yet. -Original Message- From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw? I have not heard of it... Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Friday, November 21, 2003 10:57 AM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw? Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw? Is this BS or has anyone else heard of this flaw? -Original Message- From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Johnson Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA major security flaw We have upgraded our servers to Microsoft Exchange 2003 and noticed a severe security issue with OWA. When you log in with your own credentials you may be logged into another user's mailbox at random and has full access to this user's mailbox. Microsoft knows of the issue but does not have a fix yet. I was wondering how many others have seen this issue and have received the same answer from Microsoft. This seems to be a major security flaw and we have had to shut off OWA indefinitely because of the issue. Matthew Johnson CCNA Network Administrator Investment Scorecard, Inc. 615.301.7611 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.investmentscorecard.com http://www.investmentscorecard.com/ - Marcus Ranum's new book The Myth of Homeland Security is now out and is available from http://www.amazon.com/ranum In this hard-hitting review of the homeland security business, Ranum shows us how the problem is vastly harder than it's being made to
RE: RPC over HTTP on a single DC/GC/Exchange server?
I have done it, but with SSL (I made a self-signed cert with my own CA, actually on the same server) and basic auth. I haven't tried it with NTLM auth, so I can't say whether that should work or not. I would go with SSL and basic for your testing, since that mirrors real-world anyway. David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 4:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RPC over HTTP on a single DC/GC/Exchange server? Yes I agree that best practices dictate seperating Exchange from the DC, but right now I'm just concerned with getting this to work for testing purposes. I have been told by Microsoft directly that it will work if everything is on the same box. JC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bridges, Samantha Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 8:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RPC over HTTP on a single DC/GC/Exchange server? Hi. I think the recommendation is to keep DC/GC separate from the Exchange box. Do you see anything in the Event logs? Good luck always, Samantha -Original Message- From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 6:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RPC over HTTP on a single DC/GC/Exchange server? Has anyone been able to get RPC over HTTP to work when your DC/GC is on the same box as the Exchange server? My environment meets all of the prerequisites (Windows XP SP1 + RPC hotfix, Outlook 2003 RTM, Windows 2003 DC/GC, Exchange 2003). I have walked through the instructions to enable RPC over HTTP per the Exchange 2003 deployment guide, and also per the article in the Sep 2003 issue of Windows .NET Magazine. No joy. I do not want to use SSL initially (just for the purpose of testing; will enable SSL once I'm ready to roll this out). When I enable Basic Authentication in Outlook, it forces me to use SSL, so therefore I'm using NTLM. When I launch Outlook, it prompts me for credentials (even though I'm already logged in to the right account), and it continue's to prompt repeatedly, and I'm definitely entering the right password. I've seen mention of this same issue floating around on newsgroups, but no one has offered a solution. Oh, and I'm doing all of this internally for now, no firewall between me and Exchange. Any idea's? Jason _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RPC over HTTP - username/password are refused
Did you select Basic Authentication on the client? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Troels Majlandt Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 5:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RPC over HTTP - username/password are refused Hi there ! I have tried to set up RPC over HTTP Server1 = Win2K3 and Exchange 2003 Server2 = Win2K3 (GC) Client = WinXP and Outlook 2003 (from my home location) I looks like everything work - but when i make a profile and try to connect to the exchange server the username/password are refused. I have SSL on the Exchange server. I have configured the RPC over HTTP try guidelines in Exchange 2003 Deployment Guide, ie. the webserver - configurations in regedit on both the exchange server and global catalog server. AnyOne have any idea on where to look for the error - that my username/password are refused from the client. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: bounce*@domain.com catch all alias
See Q324021. You'll need to modify it a bit, but it shows you the general framework. -Original Message- From: Dale Geoffrey Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 10:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: bounce*@domain.com catch all alias Rules Wizard, maybe? Geoff... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 11:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: bounce*@domain.com catch all alias I want to create a catch all address with exchange that will deliver all email that starts with a word (like bounce_#var#@domain.com) ex. [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there any way to deliver these addresses with specific wildcards to a single mailbox? Any help would be appreciated, send a response to [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: Trying to keep Exchange (et al) in our org
You might find some info linked from http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/evaluation/compare/default.asp to be interesting or useful to you. David -Original Message- From: Smith Joseph [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions All, Our corporate standards include an NT4 domain and Exchange 5.5 (and has for several years now). We have 13 plants located in various countries around the world. Our corporate HQ (located in Finland) has hired a new IS director who has given us a directive that, in lieu of the anticipated AD/Win2K/E2K rollout, we will be changing our backend infrastructure to novell e-directory/lotus notes/linux servers! Now, I am as open-minded as the next guy about the prospect of padding my resume with all sorts of new applications, but that seems a bit drastic. Apparently, it all comes down to money. Besides, I love my E55sp4 server; it NEVER gives me any problems. Has anyone else experienced this? Which would be more painful short-term? long-term?: the AD/Win2K/E2K or Novell/Lotus/Linux? I get the impression that this is a knee-jerk reaction to Microsoft licensing costs. Any thoughts, experiences, or warnings concerning this migration would be appreciated. Sincerely, Joseph Smith MCSE (NT4 + 2K), CCNA, Network+ Network Administrator Perlos, Inc. 5201 Alliance Gateway Fort Worth, TX 76178-3729 Work: 817-224-9012 [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: Bad amil folder management
The only messages that end up in the badmail folder should be NDRs that are in response to NDRs. Because an NDR has no return address (on purpose), when you can't deliver an NDR, you have to do something special. Exchange 2000 puts such messages in the badmail directory. I can't recommend putting them back into pickup, in most cases that will just result in them going back into badmail. -Original Message- From: Rickenbacher Beat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 2:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions If you're having the time you can open the *.bad files and change the TO:-address to your own email address. Then rename the *.bad files to *.msg (*.eml, or...) and put them to the pickup folder. Happy reading! One occasion I know when mails are going to the badmail folder: The SMTP service is up but the Store Service is down. So no mail can be delivered to the store. After some retries the administrator error message (NDR for Admin) including the mail will be stored in the Badmail folder. I don't know of a tool which could read this messages to allow you to easily forward selected mails. Sure, renaming the *.bad file and put them to the pickup folder will forward this kind of message to the administrator. Ricki -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Freitag, 31. Mai 2002 18:01 An: Exchange Discussions Betreff: Bad amil folder management I have searched and found nothing that discusses what to do with the badmail folder files. Can someone point me toward a resource? I certainly hope this question is not along the lines of the M directory. Jim Liddil _ 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: Smtp connector gone mad?
That's correct. Here is how you should remember it: - If the Exchange 2000 system is the authoritative system for the domain, and if an incoming recipient doesn't exist in Exchange 2000, it should be NDR'd, then: put the domain into a recipient policy and check the box that says This Exchange organization is responsible for mail to this domain. - If the Exchange 2000 system is NOT authoritative for the domain, so when an incoming recipinet doesn't exist in the Exchange 2000 directory, you want it to be forwarded off to some other system (e.g., a legacy UNIX or Notes system), then: (1) create an SMTP connector, (2) set the address space to SMTP:THEDOMAIN.COM, (3) set the smarthost to the FQDN of a host that accepts SMTP mail for that system, and (4) check the box on the Address Spaces tab that says Accept inbound relay for these domain. If you have a group of domains that all go to the same internal host, you can group all of those domains on the same connector. The second case above is one of the two(*) cases that you configure anything about inbound mail with an SMTP connector, in all common situations, SMTP connectors are only needed to configure outbound mail. (*) the other case is where you want to accept mail and queue it for triggered delivery, and this is very rarely used -Original Message- From: Stephen Mynhier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 5:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Smtp connector gone mad? That's still not a reason for using an SMTP connector. E2k doesn't need an SMTP connector for sending an receiving internet mail regardless of the number of internet domain names being hosted. SMTP Virtual Server handles the transport Recipient policies handle the multiple domains -Original Message- From: Leo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Friday, May 17, 2002 4:47 AM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Smtp connector gone mad? Subject: RE: Smtp connector gone mad? Yeah I know I have not provided all the info, sorry. We have multiple domain names and want to accept messages into the org from the internet via this connector. Regards Leo You don't need an SMTP connector for sending and receiving email. that might just be what the SMTP virtual server is for? -Original Message- From: Leo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=20 Posted At: Thursday, May 16, 2002 4:43 PM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Smtp connector gone mad? Subject: RE: Smtp connector gone mad? We want to be able to accept incoming email from the internet. Leo _ 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]
Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2000 Migration Microsoft Chat Coming April 30
Microsoft will be hosting a chat on Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2000 Migrations on April 30 and it is open to all customers. It will be at 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM Pacific Time or 17:00 - 18:00 GMT. You can learn more by visiting: http://microsoft.com/technet/itcommunity/chats/ The chat will be staffed by program managers from the Exchange development group (such as me), product support professionals, and Microsoft consultants. Itshould be a great time to ask questions about 5.5 to 2000 migrations. David _ 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: blocking domains
Create a Message Filter entry for the domain that is in the From:, then apply it to the virtual servers that accept mail from the Internet as described in Q261087. David -Original Message- From: Mark Levesque [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 12:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: blocking domains Anyone know of a way to block a domain from attempting to send email to my exchange server, such as a known spam site withing 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: Netscape user receives no line wraps?
Is this a person who is not an Exchange user, but receives mail from Exchange systems? The default for Exchange is to wrap lines at around 70 characters for outbound plain text messages. You can turn it off. This is a setting on the IMS in 5.5, or the Internet Message Format in Exchange 2000 (per-IMS or per domain in 5.5, per-domain only in E2K). I'm not sure this setting helps your sistuation, since I don't understand the topology well enough, but it's worth knowing about. David -Original Message- From: Fred W. Macondray Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 3:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Netscape user receives no line wraps? Hi All, I've got a user who receives messages from Exchange users here frequently. However when he gets them, they have no line wrap. The text just streams across multiple pages laterally. Any ideas regarding this? Something I can change in Netscape or on the Exchange server? Thanks Fred Fred Macondray Systems Administrator Virtual Purchase Card, Inc. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.virtualpurchasecard.com - Guaranteed B2B Purchases _ 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: Q article confirmation
FYI this registry key was introduced in 5.5 SP1. David -Original Message- From: Finch Brett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Q article confirmation Yeah but I'm fed up with calling PSS, that's why I thought I could get a easy answer here. I thought surely someone has made this registry hack work. -Original Message- From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Q article confirmation The article says it's fixed in the next sp. Since there was no sp listed at the time of the article, and you're on sp4, they seem to think you shouldn't have the problem. -Original Message- From: Finch Brett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 1:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Q article confirmation Oh sorry, I had posted on the weekend. Exchange 5.5 SPK4 on NT4 SPK6a, my thinking is a typo in the article as it doesn't appear to work in it's present form. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:31 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Q article confirmation Version and SP? [1] [1] Good Gawd, I sound like Precht -Original Message- From: Finch Brett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 2:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Q article confirmation I've made a change to the registry as outlined in this Q article. It does not appear to work at all. If someone has made the same registry, can you confirm that this works and it is the correct registry entry (not a typo). http://support.microsoft.com/directory/article.asp?ID=KB;EN-US;Q182010 _ 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] _ 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: Routing SMTP
What you should do is to create one SMTP connector for each smart host, set its source to be the E2K server that the MX records point it, add all of the address spaces that you want to accept for relay to the Address Spaces tab, and check the box on that tab that says Allow inbound relay to these domains. Finally, set the smart host to be the right 5.5 server that accepts SMTP for that host. So in other words, the answer to your question is yes, you can set up multiple smtp connectors on E2K that have a smart host, just remember to check the box that says allow relay to these domains on the connectors. David This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights. -Original Message- From: RB [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 5:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Routing SMTP I want to route messages that come in from the internet to the correct smart host. We have several smtp address spaces for several E5.5 orgs We want to define them all on our E2k server so that it can route these on to the correct host (smart host) in each e5.5 org. Can I set up multiple smtp connectors on E2k that have a smart host and smtp address space defined or do I need to do something else. Thanks folks 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: Interorg tool doesn't work on E2k???HELP!!
There are 3 categories that you want to synchronize between orgs: 1) User information (so you can have a synchronized GAL). That article talks about how to do that using the ADC. This is one of the two things that the ADC can do, synch users, groups, contacts, etc. See Q264482 for how far you can go with support for using the ADC between orgs. 2) Config info about the servers in the org. This is the other thing that the ADC can do. When you use the ADC to synch config info, you need to realize that you are actually joining the orgs, from a config and routing information point of view. This is what allows you to see all of the 5.5 servers in the ESM console, and allows E2K servers to know how to route directly to 5.5 mailboxes. 3) Data, usually public folders, including free/busy information. This is really your question. The answer is yes, it is supported on E2K. See Q238573, Q238642 and finally Q316022. David This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights. -Original Message- From: RB [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 12:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Interorg tool doesn't work on E2k???HELP!! Leonard, thanks for your reply. I had already read this article. It does not state that the interorg tool works with E2k. It does mention E5.0+ It states that the following scenarois will be covered. 1. Exchange 5.5 Inter-Organization Solutions 2. Exchange 2000 Inter-Organization Solutions 3. Microsoft Metadirectory Services What I need is E5.5 - E2k inter-organization solutions. On the chance that I would find the answer here I looked and did not find it. Text from the article This chapter covers only Exchange Server version 5.5 synchronization and replication with Exchange 2000. VERY HOPEFUL TEXT! IT THEN STATES. Many companies that routinely purchase and sell entire companies have unique directory requirements. To meet these requirements, Microsoft Consulting Services developed the InterOrg Synchronization tool to synchronize different Exchange 5.5 organizations into a cohesive directory IT THEN GOES ON TO SAY If you have Windows 2000 installed, Active Directory Connector (ADC) helps synchronize multiple Exchange 2000 organizations and Exchange 5.5 sites into a cohesive directory. UNFORTUNATELY this article describes how to synchronise Directories between E5+ - E2k (by directories it means the GAL and accounts). It does not cover replication of data and routing information between two orgs. Am I right or have I messed something? Regards 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: Msx5.5 versus SPAM
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q279860 http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/security/mail/excrelay.asp -Original Message- From: Bravo, Liliana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:08 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Msx5.5 versus SPAM MSX5.5, SP4 Hi Seems that our Exchange server is being used by externals to sent messages like spam, what do we need to do to allow just our three domains *.com to send messages out? tia =er _ 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: Tweaking RGCs
Check your DNS entry for the two offices - it may be that you have either multiple A records, or a secondary MX record for the other office that points to the server that sends to that office. This misconfiguration would match the behavior you describe. And BTW - the expiration timeout only refers to the time a message will sit in a queue for a host that you can't reach before it gives up. If the system can connect to the host it thinks it needs to connect to, and get an error, it will always NDR immediately, despite the settings. In this case, it thinks it needs to contact itself. Or, another possibility is that there are so many hops in the way that these messages are hitting their default hop count limit, which I believe is 20. SMTP detects loops by counting Received: headers, that may be what's happening here. See Q313529 for details on this. And see Q284204 for details on how to read NDR codes to tell what is actually going on. David -Original Message- From: Morrison, Gordon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 2:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Tweaking RGCs That's what I thought as well. However, what I am seeing is that if I have a single RGC pair between two offices, and the connectivity between those two offices drops: Any user who sends a message that needs that RGC will get an NDR within a couple of minutes saying that a message loop was detected. Since there is no other path for the message to take, it seems unlikely that it can be a loop, and since it comes back within a couple of minutes, it seems as though it is not using those SMTP settings. -Original Message- From: David Lemson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 1:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Tweaking RGCs The Delivery Report timeouts are set on the SMTP Virtual Server that would generate it. It doesn't matter what kind of connector is used. -Original Message- From: Morrison, Gordon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 7:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Tweaking RGCs Is there any way to tweak the amount of time (or number of retries)a Routing Group Connector is willing to go through before giving up on a message and generating an NDR? The general SMTP settings do not seem to apply. /Gordon ___NOTICE This electronic mail transmission contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then destroy the message. Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Bain Company shall be understood to be neither given nor endorsed by the Company. When addressed to Bain clients, any information contained in this e-mail is subject to the terms and conditions in the governing client contract. _ 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] ___NOTICE This electronic mail transmission contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then destroy the message. Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Bain Company shall be understood to be neither given nor endorsed by the Company. When addressed to Bain clients, any information contained in this e-mail is subject to the terms and conditions in the governing client contract. _ 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: Tweaking RGCs
The Delivery Report timeouts are set on the SMTP Virtual Server that would generate it. It doesn't matter what kind of connector is used. -Original Message- From: Morrison, Gordon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 7:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Tweaking RGCs Is there any way to tweak the amount of time (or number of retries)a Routing Group Connector is willing to go through before giving up on a message and generating an NDR? The general SMTP settings do not seem to apply. /Gordon ___NOTICE This electronic mail transmission contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then destroy the message. Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Bain Company shall be understood to be neither given nor endorsed by the Company. When addressed to Bain clients, any information contained in this e-mail is subject to the terms and conditions in the governing client contract. _ 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: Forcing encrypted RPC connections with Outlook client.
1) no it doesn't 2) he can't have it anyway -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Forcing encrypted RPC connections with Outlook client. Perhaps the DMS version of the client has this functionality. Chris -- Chris Scharff Senior Sales Engineer MessageOne If you can't measure, you can't manage! -Original Message- From: Brian Cornell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Forcing encrypted RPC connections with Outlook client. I am looking for a way to force encrypted RPC sessions between Outlook and Exchange. I am familiar with the client MAPI settings that allow the user to optionally select encryption, but I want to enforce this from the server side. Any suggestions? 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]
RE: Forcing encrypted RPC connections with Outlook client.
Oops, sorry about the brief tone, I meant that to go to only Chris :-) Elaborating on 2) - the DMS version of Outlook is only available to authorized US DoD customers. David -Original Message- From: David Lemson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 8:20 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Forcing encrypted RPC connections with Outlook client. 1) no it doesn't 2) he can't have it anyway -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Forcing encrypted RPC connections with Outlook client. Perhaps the DMS version of the client has this functionality. Chris -- Chris Scharff Senior Sales Engineer MessageOne If you can't measure, you can't manage! -Original Message- From: Brian Cornell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Forcing encrypted RPC connections with Outlook client. I am looking for a way to force encrypted RPC sessions between Outlook and Exchange. I am familiar with the client MAPI settings that allow the user to optionally select encryption, but I want to enforce this from the server side. Any suggestions? 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: win.dat attachments
OK, here's my explanation for what TNEF is. Skip it if you've heard me say it at MEC. Exchange and Outlook clients, against Exchange servers, typically use MAPI to talk to the server. In this mode of operation (as opposed to POP or IMAP), the Outlook client does not generate a MIME message, it sets different message properties (To, body, attachments, special calendaring or task properties, etc.) as certain predefined MAPI properties. The client uses RPC to marshall these properties over to the server, where they are stored in the message store. Now, when this message needs to go over to another server, it's very important the properties be maintained exactly as they are set. In the old days (Exchange 4.x, 5.x), servers usually used RPC to send the properties acrosss to other servers in the same Organization. When the message went via RPC, there was no problem keeping the properties the same as they went across. But then, we introduced SMTP as a way to send messages from one server to another. The problem was: how to maintain those properties? There was no standard way in MIME to map all of those properties. They could have chosen to add a bunch of X-headers, but that would been pretty ugly. So, they decided to invent a way to encapsulate the MAPI properties and attach them to the SMTP message. In those days, you were just as likely to want to send uuencode as MIME, so they invented a filename as well as a MIME type: winmail.dat, and application/ms-tnef. They might have used a different MIME type in the beginning, I'm not sure. A TNEF'd message will have a plain text rendering of the body, and a TNEF attachment that contains the MAPI properties, including a rich rendering of the body and any custom properties. The other piece of information about TNEF is that when you send a message that has an attachment and it goes out with TNEF, the attachment is encapsulated inside the TNEF. So this is where the experience that if a message comes in with TNEF to a recipient that can't parse TNEF, it seems OK to the recipient (since they see the plain text rendering), but they lose the attachments, because the attachments are encoded within the TNEF. Anyway, that's what TNEF is: a way to make sure that MAPI properties as set on one server are persisted as the message travels across SMTP to another server. Exchange servers and Outlook clients know how to take the TNEF attachment apart and put it back into the native MAPI properties that they understand. Most other clients do not know how to deal with TNEF. A friend of mine wrote a TNEF parser for UNIX, since he worked at a company that used Exchange but refused to use Outlook (http://www.fiction.net/blong/programs/#tnef2txt). Whether or not a message will go out with TNEF has nothing to do with the way the message body is encoded within the TNEF, it is a completely orthogonal setting. You can have a message whose body is encoded as plain text, as HTML, or as RTF (remember, RTF is a file format for Microsoft Word! It has nothing to do with TNEF), but the body is encoded within TNEF. Whether or not a message is TNEF'd depends on the way the recipients are set. By default, a message to a one-off recipient in Outlook will be set as not TNEF, or not Outlook Rich Text Format. You can select to have a recipient get TNEF, either in the properties of the one-off recipient, or if they are created as a contact you can set it by right-clicking on the email address in the contact record just the same way (in OL 2000 there was a checkbox and they called it Exchange Rich Text Format). Additionally, since you all are Exchange admins, you will probably recognize the server-based setting that lets you set a given domain to get Exchange Rich Text Format either always, never, or (the default) based on user settings. The default user setting lets individual users set whether or not a given recipient will get TNEF. Disclaimer: This information is provided as is with no warranties. David -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 7:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: win.dat attachments ?? Using any kind of rich text results in 8-bit characters that have to be converted. In MIME this creates a type of MS-TNEF which only a handful of clients can read. The rest, if they can unravel it at all, show a winmail.dat attachment that nothing can open. msinternal: in KB search danich mime ms-tnef Unless I'm seriously misunderstanding what you're saying, that is... - Original Message - From: David Lemson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 8:10 PM Subject: RE: win.dat attachments The key string is Exchange Rich Text or Outlook Rich Text. Wherever you see that, choose NOT Rich Text. This will result in not sending winmail.dat. Incidentally, this has nothing to do with RTF at all. David -Original Message- From
RE: Exchange 2k OWA in a DMZ
I recommend reading this white paper, which details the steps you need to go through: http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/techinfo/deployment/2000/E2KFrontBack. asp David -Original Message- From: Varghese, Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 10:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange 2k OWA in a DMZ Here is the deal: We have a exchange 2000 front end and back end server. The front end server was working great as an OWA server when we did the setup and initial testing. (inside our network). Soon as I moved it to the DMZ, Exchange services wouldn't start on this server. We even went to the hassle of putting an any rule on the firewall so nothing was blocked from the Front end server (DMZ) to the internal network, and from the internal network to the front end server. Been working on this for over 2 days now and can't seem to figure out why Exchange can't access AD to start. LDAP communication is happening both ways, I can log in to the server, etc.. Another kicker is, when I tried to uninstall exchange 2k on the front end server, it says it can't connect to AD or doesn't know what site it's in... WTF.. Anyone have any ideas? Please? Thanks in advance... Wilson _ 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: Unbreakable Oracle 9i
I believe they're suggesting that you use POP or IMAP and SMTP as the protocols from Outlook to the server. Of course, you could do the same with Exchange, but look at the functionality difference. David -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 9:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Unbreakable Oracle 9i I believe there product and claims are insane. Search the archives on this one. We discussed it at length a month or so ago when this product was first announced. Geography and band width sometimes dictates more servers. Very few companies have 100,000 plus employees, but oracle seems to think in this ad that everyone does? 10,000 people on one server X 50 megs a user = 500 gigs of data. Could you imagine backing up and restoring that in a timely manor? I could go one for hours. Bottom line this is an insane product that will disappear soon. Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jim Brady Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Unbreakable Oracle 9i Anyone have an opinions on Oracle's claim to make exchange unbreakable (ie replace the backend with 9i (100 exchange = 1 oracle) and keep the clients on Outlook? Thanks ... Jim Here's the blurb ... -- Save Millions and Save Headaches Oracle9iAS Unified Messaging - combining email, voicemail, fax - is the most cost effective, reliable and secure messaging system. All messages are stored in a single repository - Oracle9i Database, with central management in the data center. Save $$$ on hardware, software and administration with unified e-mail, voicemail and fax. Use Real Application Clusters for a highly scalable, available, and fault tolerant enterprise messaging system. Enjoy security of messages stored in Oracle's database - backed by 14 international security evaluations Oracle Customers Save $$$ with Consolidation Oracle saved $13 million in the first year and $11 million per subsequent year by consolidating 97 servers into 2. Landis ICT Group migrated from 44 Exchange servers to one Oracle email server, saving $900K on fixed costs and $1.1 million annually on administration. Oracle saved $100K by implementing unified messaging for 1000 users in a new office instead of purchasing a conventional voicemail system. Make Microsoft Email Unbreakable You love your Microsoft Email - but you're worried about security and reliability. Simply keep Microsoft Outlook and replace your Microsoft Exchange servers - up to 100 of them - with one Oracle Database Server. Suddenly Microsoft Email is unbreakable. The only change the users notice is that their e-mail is faster and always available. Oracle Consulting's Email Migration Service provides all the assistance you need to migrate from Microsoft Exchange to Oracle9i. - _ 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] _ 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: Permanent errors with messages to UNIX host - data format error
I would suggest calling Microsoft Product Support Services. If your server is really named COMMS, then you probably need professional assistance on this issue. -Original Message- From: Haris Dechapunya [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 1:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Permanent errors with messages to UNIX host - data format error We have a problem with messages bouncing back from a UNIX host with the following error message, The original message was received at Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:34:44 +1300 (NZDT) from rata.vuw.ac.nz [130.195.2.11] - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Transcript of session follows - austens: Message contains non-ASCII characters in headers 501 [EMAIL PROTECTED]... Data format error - The explanation from the recipient is that some SMTP servers don't strictly adhere to an RFC and Exchange Server is one of them. They are filtering out incorrect headers on this UNIX mail server. We have tested from other Exchange 5.5 Servers running both SP3 and SP4 and have not had the error message. As far as we can see the system configurations are almost identical. The only difference around the perimeter as we are using Proxy Server 2.0. The full header is included below and you can see some miscellaneous characters in the name of our Exchange Server (COMMS) which we cannot work out what they are or how they got there. Any help, pointers would be appreciated. Regards, Haris - Received: from rata.vuw.ac.nz ([130.195.2.11]) by comms.branz.org.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id D2X5JHQV; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:34:44 +1300 Received: from matai.vuw.ac.nz (matai.vuw.ac.nz [130.195.2.13]) by rata.vuw.ac.nz (8.10.1/8.10.1.4) with ESMTP id g0JLYi205527 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:34:44 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from localhost (localhost) by matai.vuw.ac.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with internal id KAA24200; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:34:44 +1300 (NZDT) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:34:44 +1300 (NZDT) From: Mail Delivery Subsystem [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary=KAA24200.1011476084/matai.vuw.ac.nz Subject: Returned mail: Data format error Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure) This is a MIME-encapsulated message --KAA24200.1011476084/matai.vuw.ac.nz --KAA24200.1011476084/matai.vuw.ac.nz Content-Type: message/delivery-status --KAA24200.1011476084/matai.vuw.ac.nz Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from rata.vuw.ac.nz (rata.vuw.ac.nz [130.195.2.11]) by matai.vuw.ac.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA16713 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:34:44 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from comms.branz.org.nz (proxy.branz.org.nz [203.97.237.174]) by rata.vuw.ac.nz (8.10.1/8.10.1.4) with ESMTP id g0JLYh209276 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:34:43 +1300 (NZDT) Received: by COMMÊ$ãS with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id D2X5JHQ4; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:34:43 +1300 Message-ID: 0D94E49D52E0D0118184F8040B97014F36DF@COMME$aS From: Haris Dechapunya [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:33:56 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01C1A130.FFADFFE0 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --_=_NextPart_001_01C1A130.FFADFFE0 Content-Type: text/plain --_=_NextPart_001_01C1A130.FFADFFE0 Content-Type: text/html --_=_NextPart_001_01C1A130.FFADFFE0-- --KAA24200.1011476084/matai.vuw.ac.nz-- _ 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: Envelope Recipients is zero...
Try Exchange 2000 SP2. (on the server, not the machine running the ESM console) I'm not positive that it will fix the situation you are hitting, but several issues related to counts being off were fixed in SP2. David -Original Message- From: Cook, David A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 9:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Envelope Recipients is zero... Hoping someone can help me with my issue. I seem to recall reading something about this once before and I thought it releted to sending delivery/read reciepts. I can't find anything on it in the archive or on Microsoft though. I may be searching for the wrong thing though. Running E2K SP1 on W2K SP2. Client are all W2K SP2 and Outlook 2K. My issue is that periodically a message gets caught in my SMTP queue in a retry state. If I open up the properties of the message as it sits in the SMTP queue there are no recipients listed and the number of envelope recipients is zero. Has anyone seen this before or have any idea what to look at? I checked the users sent item around the time that the message was sent to the queue and there is nothing sent at that time. If this is a delivery/read reciept how can I find out why it's getting stuck in the queue. Dave Cook Exchange Administrator Kutak Rock, LLP 402-231-8352 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## The information contained in this electronic mail transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized recipient(s), and may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, you have received this transmission in error and are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from reading, copying, printing, distributing or disclosing any of the information contained in it. In that event, please contact us immediately by telephone (402)346-6000 or by electronic mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete the original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments) without reading or saving in any manner. 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: enabling S/Mime support
No. The only reason that checkbox on the IMC is there is in case you have clients that are pre-Outlook 98. If you do, you may want to strip S/MIME so that those clients don't get confused. Nowadays, this is almost never an issue. The default has changed in Exchange 2000 to allow S/MIME. -Original Message- From: Jim Bob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 4:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: enabling S/Mime support I have a quick question. I work in a large Exchange 5.5 sp4 shop with multiple sites and IMCs. We have a number of clients that want to use S/Mime and we currently don't have it enabled on the IMCs. Is there any drawback to enabling S/MIME support in Exchange 5.5 SP4? Thanks for any help _ 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: IMC originator
It depends what bad spammer email address means. If the part of the address to the right of the @ sign truly does not exist in DNS (e.g., zjeorheorejreohre.net), then it should get thrown away very quickly as soon as the queue is processed. However, if the part to the right side of the @ sign exists, and points to a server that is really up (e.g., hotmail.com) but the left side is bogus, then the message will hang around until it connects up and either gets an error during the SMTP protocol or is accepted and deleted later. There is no way for Exchange to know that this NDR is destined to a bad spammer email address, while another NDR is destined for your grandmother who mistyped your email address. -Original Message- From: Alverson, Thomas M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 6:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IMC originator Is there any way to have exchange 5.5 treat those NDR messages to bad spammer email addresses differently than real emails? I delete them when I see them in the queue, but It would be nice if you could make exchange give up real easily (quickly) when trying to send an NDR to a bad address. Tom -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 3:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: IMC originator The RFC isn't real clear on this. We've gone round on this before and it seems that server can optionally deny the message up-front or accept it and than NDR it back to the sender. Exchange does the latter. - Original Message - From: Siegel, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 1:55 PM Subject: RE: IMC originator Ok, but they should not be sending ndr's in response to notification messages is my point. If relaying disabled, messages that are 'spoofed' should not generate an NDR in my opinion. I mean, why should it send and fail send and fail to hosts that don't exist just to say, 'invalid host' or relaying prohibited or am I missing something? -Original Message- From: Lefkovics, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 2:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IMC originator They will still appear for standard, valid NDR's as well. William -Original Message- From: Siegel, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 11:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IMC originator So I should ignore those if they are not causing any other problem? I have followed all the suggested reccomendations regarding relaying. Rich -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 1:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: IMC originator That is your server NDRing the attempted relays back to the spammers. Since spammers tend to use bogus addresses those messages will likely timeout after three days as undeliverable. - Original Message - From: Siegel, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 12:18 PM Subject: IMC originator I believe I have closed my mail server: smtp.actv.com from relaying, however whenever I go into the IMS queues, I am still seeing messages with originator with destination another host. What is up with this, am I missing something? Rich _ 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: OWA Enumeration Question
Do not underestimate the power of a dictionary attack. Especially if the alias of the DL is less than 8 characters long, it is not hard to manage a brute-force attack. -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 3:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: OWA Enumeration Question Chris, 1. Not an obvious name. 2. duh It did include an external SMTP addr \duh However, the DL was hidden from the GAL, as was the membership of the DL. 3. Dictionary generated listing wouldn't have worked for reason #1. 4. I COULD stand to lose 30 pounds. While fighting spammers does provide an amusing distraction from time to time, this is not what bothers me. What bothers me is the fact that they evidently got ahold of *every other* SMTP address in the GAL, as evidenced by the fact that they know what the addr is to this one hidden DL that is less than 2 months old. TIA O Great Exchang Yoda ;o) -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 2:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: OWA Enumeration Question Other possibilities. The DL name is an obvious one that someone would guess (e.g. all@ sales@ hr@). The DL includes an external recipient and someone sent to the DL with it in the to or from field of a message. The address was created through a dictionary generated spam mailing. Someone in your org knows how to help you lose 30lbs in 30 days. -- Chris Scharff The Mail Resource Center http://www.Mail-Resources.com The Home Page for Mail Administrators. Software pick of the month (Extended Reminders): http://www.slovaktech.com/extendedreminders.htm Exchange FAQs: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exchange.htm Chris -- Chris Scharff Senior Sales Engineer MessageOne If you can't measure, you can't manage! -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 4:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: OWA Enumeration Question Ok, here's the situation: Win2k SP2 with Exchange OWA 5.5 SP4+2 and IIS 5.0 In the past couple of weeks, we have been getting hit VERY hard by SPAM. It didn't really trip my trigger until I saw one particular NDR in my postmaster mailbox this morning. Upon opening and looking specifically at the distribution list, I found that the message was addressed to two different SMTP addresses within our organization. One of those addresses has been deleted, hence the NDR. The other addressee was a hidden DL that was created after 11/8/01, at the suggestion of one Mr. Louis Joyce, in a separate thread to someone else (see RE: email to a deleted mailbox). Now...there are three ways I can think of that someone has gotten ahold of our enumerated GAL: 1. They enumerated our GAL through the OWA, ala MS01-047 : OWA Function Allows Unauthenticated User to Enumerate Global Address List. This is Q307195. We have grepped the log files as far back as 07/01/01 on the OWA server, and can find no indication that this vulnerability has been exploited on our server. In the Add/Remove Programs, it doesn't show this hotfix as having been installed, but it does show hotfix Q313576 as having been installed and Q307195 is an included hotfix (I would say we could rule that option out). 2. We are one site in a two site organization, with the other site being the parent site. Therefore, all recipients in our GAL replicate to their GAL. So...the exploit described in #1 could be performed from their OWA site if the patch hasn't been applied, with the same results (Don't know their status yet). 3. Someone from within our company or theirs has enumerated the GAL and is selling it to outside sources. Have I left any possibilities out? James H (Jim) Blunt Network / Microsoft Exchange Admin. Network Infrastructure Group Bechtel Hanford, Inc. 509-372-9188 _ 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: Front-end server problem
Here are the facts: - The setting on an Exchange server This is a Front End Server in ESM has no effect on SMTP. It only affects POP, IMAP, and HTTP. The design of Exchange is that all Exchange servers are inbound servers for SMTP. Outbound SMTP is controlled via SMTP Connectors. - Some people have asked for the ability to run Front Ends without information stores on them, in order to reduce the memory footprint, etc. As far as I know, this is not supported in the current version of Exchange 2000. - Separate from the fact above, the SMTP Service does need an information store to be mounted in order to generate delivery status notifications (even if there is no mailbox delivery happening on that server). The reason is that there is some formatting that needs to happen to the attached message that uses the MIME formatting code present in the store. If you dismount all mailbox stores on a server that accepts inbound messages and that server creates a DSN, that DSN and all subsequent ones will stick in the local delivery queue until a mailbox store is mounted. In this case, the server doesn't go into a loop or crash, it's just that all DSNs will stick in the local delivery queue (which is a bad thing). I hope this clears it up. David -Original Message- From: Karen McLaughlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 12:18 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Front-end server problem Hi all, I'm about to configure front-end servers for SMTP, but heard some pretty distressing news about that today. I heard that inetinfo will crash if the servers have any information stores of them, but since the stores generate delivery status msgs, you can't have the FE's as SMTP Gateways or the machine will start establishing TCP connections to itself indefinitely. Apparently there are Q articles out about this, but I haven't read them yet. I was curious to see who has tried to do this out in the field and what your experience has been like so far. TIA, Karen _ 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]
Was: Question from a troll to a Yoda - Now: RFC Question
The Exchange 2000 / Windows 2000 SMTP Service default is 15 and can be modified using \inetpub\adminscripts\adsutil.vbs. The metabase key to see is smtpsvc/1/HopCount. With the informatio we have, Microsoft and Exchange does not believe that a limit like 100 is appropriate. However, if you would rather follow the suggestion in RFC 2821, you are welcome to change it. Realize that in the event of a misconfiguration that causes a 3-way loop, you may be spending a heck of a lot of CPU and disk resources in bouncing mail around before it stops. The MTA does not count Received: headers, so you were right to not be thinking about the MTA. And to answer Andy's original question, a trivial loop is where you have a recipient, you resolve that recipient, look them up in your routing system, and find out that you should connect to server FOO. Then, you look up server FOO and find out that server FOO is YOU! You immediately should NDR with a 5.4.6 code (for code meanings, see RFC 1893), which is exactly what Exchange 2000 / Windows 2000 will do. (I do not know if Exchange 5.5 does that) David Iron Chef SMTP -Original Message- From: Jennifer Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 1:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Was: Question from a troll to a Yoda - Now: RFC Question The Exchange IMS default is 18 and can be changed (MaxReceivedHeaders), atleast that is what I have been telling myself for 4 years. Or are we talking about the MTA? Or both? -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 1:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Was: Question from a troll to a Yoda - Now: RFC Question After 5.5 SP2 the Received headers were counted. The limit is set to 512 I believe (don't know if this can be changed). Does the RFC say what constitutes a trivial loop? Not really. - Original Message - From: Andy David [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 2:47 PM Subject: RE: Was: Question from a troll to a Yoda - Now: RFC Question Since we are on this subject again, maybe someone can answer this for me since I got nary a response last time: 6.2 Loop Detection Simple counting of the number of Received: headers in a message has proven to be an effective, although rarely optimal, method of detecting loops in mail systems. SMTP servers using this technique SHOULD use a large rejection threshold, normally at least 100 Received entries. Whatever mechanisms are used, servers MUST contain provisions for detecting and stopping trivial loops. What mechanism does Exchange use to detect and stop loops? What constitutes a trivial loop? Are these stupid questions? Andy -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 3:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Question from a troll to a Yoda If you take the time to read RFC2821 you can answer those questions, and many others for yourself. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html Chris -- Chris Scharff Senior Sales Engineer MessageOne If you can't measure, you can't manage! -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 2:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Question from a troll to a Yoda um... is it really not obvious? 1) There are too many recipients in the email (that's the TO: line) Whats the max amount would this be on the my server or the recievers server 2) The email is larger than the message limit (that means it's too big) and what is the limit in size that someone can send out. -- Drew Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now! Each time a person stands up for an idea, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, (s)he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. --Robert F. Kennedy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tener, Richard Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 2:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Question from a troll to a Yoda Can any Yoda tell me what this error or NDR means. I have seen about 8 of them today. 1.) A mail message was not sent due to a protocol error. 553 Too many recipients in the mail, should less than 100 The message that caused this notification was: 2.) A mail message was not sent due to a protocol error. 12107454 bytes exceeds server limit of 512 The message that caused this notification was: _ List
