Re: Store.exe causes unusually high memory usage
Read the FAQ. It's not a problem unless the Store doesn't release the memory when needed. Dynamic Buffer Allocation. FAQ FAQ FAQ. Eric - Original Message - From: "Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:07 PM Subject: Store.exe causes unusually high memory usage > I recenty noticed that our Exchange server is running really slow. I > checked the Task Manager and noticed that the STORE.EXE process is using > up over 900MB of memory(We have around 1GB total memory). The store.exe > is even using the paging file for more memory. Does anyone know a way to > correct this problem? > > Thanks, > > Dennis > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Lotus Notes
Allows you to send messages (ie, "Connect") between the two systems. It's also possible to replicate directory between the two systems over the Notes Connector. It's useful in heterogeneous environments or during a migration from one system (Notes) to the other (Exchange). Eric - Original Message - From: "Mike Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 1:11 PM Subject: Lotus Notes What functionality does the Lotus Notes connector provide? We have a Notes box and we are thinking about setting up an Exchange 2k box, for various reasons, and wondering what type of functionality the connector provides. Thanks, Mike Carlson http://www.domitianx.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Master Of The Spoon People Keeper Of None _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe
I'm a closet hippie, too - but when it comes to E-mail I'm a militant fascist. I was referring to E-mail hippies. I hate em. Real hippies are groovy man. - Original Message - From: "Hunter, Lori" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 7:05 AM Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > Hey, I resemble THAT remark! > > I'm a full-fledged, card carrying hippie witch here, Eric. I would have > voted for that policy and as an added bonus put pictures of the offenders > (wearing cap and shirt) on a bulletin board by the coffee machine. Probably > posted on the intranet as well. > > Damn conservatives. > > -Original Message- > From: Eric Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 6:12 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > > > At my last job we proposed a security policy whereby any user who executed a > virus and infected the system would have to wear a dunce cap and a T-Shirt > that says "I'm the idiot who opened the virus" for a week. It was almost > made policy. Damn hippies shot it down... > > - Original Message - > From: "Mike Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:00 PM > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > > > Exactly why MS has to create patches like this particular one. > > Morons. > > What would be cool is if you could put a lock on their mail box so that > when they open up Outlook there is an administrative message staring > them in the face. Before they could open any email they would have to > click OK and then retype what the administrative message was in a box > exactly as it was. If they don't get it right, they are prompted again. > If a new virus goes around the admin could put a lock on all mailboxes > until they perform those steps. > > Kind like yelling at your kids. You tell them something and then you > make them repeat it back to you so that you realize they heard what you > said. > > -Original Message- > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 5:49 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > > > Users will open anything regardless of what you say. > I remember ILOVEYOU, and a user. I had sent out emails all day long > warning about this virus that had penetrated to a few machines before we > had the DAT file for it. Anyhow, after an email an hour all day, I was > talking to this guy about it at his desk. As I am talking, he is looking > at mail and opens it right then! He had a laptop, and I ripped the > PCCard NIC out, but too late. He just stood there and stared at me, as I > turned and ran for my servers. Too late. > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Carlson > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 3:45 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > > > Yes you should and you do. Edit the registry. > > No reason to blame MS for stupid people that open every > "clickmetof*ckupyourcomputer.exe" they get in an email. > > When are people going to take responsibility for stupid stuff they do > and their own incompetence. > > If you don't know how to drive are you going to blame the person that > runs into you? If you don't know how to use a shotgun are going to blame > the person who sold you the gun when you blow your arm off? > > I am amazed all the time when we get new hires, that cant barely survive > without a sign on their desk reminding them to inhale and exhale > otherwise they will die, and throw them in front of a computer and they > have no clue. We had to send a tech down to help a person log into their > computer. They didn't know how to press CTRL+ALT+DEL. The keyboard had > CTL instead of CTRL on the key. > > Or the other fabulous ones that reboot their computer and call us saying > their hard drive crashed when all they did was leave a non-bootable > floppy disk in the drive. > > People need to take responsibility and face up to the fact that they are > computer illiterate or just plain dense when it comes to some of this > stuff. > > Because people think they are computer geniuses even though they > couldn't tell the difference between \ and / companies like Microsoft > have to put in t
Re: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe
At my last job we proposed a security policy whereby any user who executed a virus and infected the system would have to wear a dunce cap and a T-Shirt that says "I'm the idiot who opened the virus" for a week. It was almost made policy. Damn hippies shot it down... - Original Message - From: "Mike Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:00 PM Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe Exactly why MS has to create patches like this particular one. Morons. What would be cool is if you could put a lock on their mail box so that when they open up Outlook there is an administrative message staring them in the face. Before they could open any email they would have to click OK and then retype what the administrative message was in a box exactly as it was. If they don't get it right, they are prompted again. If a new virus goes around the admin could put a lock on all mailboxes until they perform those steps. Kind like yelling at your kids. You tell them something and then you make them repeat it back to you so that you realize they heard what you said. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 5:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe Users will open anything regardless of what you say. I remember ILOVEYOU, and a user. I had sent out emails all day long warning about this virus that had penetrated to a few machines before we had the DAT file for it. Anyhow, after an email an hour all day, I was talking to this guy about it at his desk. As I am talking, he is looking at mail and opens it right then! He had a laptop, and I ripped the PCCard NIC out, but too late. He just stood there and stared at me, as I turned and ran for my servers. Too late. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Carlson Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 3:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe Yes you should and you do. Edit the registry. No reason to blame MS for stupid people that open every "clickmetof*ckupyourcomputer.exe" they get in an email. When are people going to take responsibility for stupid stuff they do and their own incompetence. If you don't know how to drive are you going to blame the person that runs into you? If you don't know how to use a shotgun are going to blame the person who sold you the gun when you blow your arm off? I am amazed all the time when we get new hires, that cant barely survive without a sign on their desk reminding them to inhale and exhale otherwise they will die, and throw them in front of a computer and they have no clue. We had to send a tech down to help a person log into their computer. They didn't know how to press CTRL+ALT+DEL. The keyboard had CTL instead of CTRL on the key. Or the other fabulous ones that reboot their computer and call us saying their hard drive crashed when all they did was leave a non-bootable floppy disk in the drive. People need to take responsibility and face up to the fact that they are computer illiterate or just plain dense when it comes to some of this stuff. Because people think they are computer geniuses even though they couldn't tell the difference between \ and / companies like Microsoft have to put in their application things like this patch. My wife is a prime example. She will be the first to admint she doesn't know anything about computers ecept for the applications that she uses all the time. If I am logged into my computer and she needs it, she logs into her own account because I have setup her account so that she cant do any damage to the computer. Don't blame MS. They are just responding to all the crap they got about not being secure. If people wouldn't click on every stupid theng they get via email, MS would ahev NEVER released that patch. There is no one to blame but morons. Mike -Original Message- From: Wynkoop, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 2:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe I should have the option to block attachments or not! Explanation: Some of us (those who work for universities with stupid staff members and arrogant professors) don't have the option of blocking attachments (Gosh forbid we infringe on anyone's "academic freedom"). That is unless we wish to endure a never ending reign of sh*t from above. Instead we have to work around the vunerabilities found in things such as VBS, EXE, and COM files (which we have successfully done I might add). We managed to succesfully ward off NIMDA, Code Red, and a rash of other recent viruses without changing what users can and can't do (see, it can be done). Now outlook just gives my users one more reason t
Re: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe
I always thought calling the patch an "Outlook Security Patch" was what caused the problems in the first place. They should have called it exactly what it was - a patch that allowed Outlook to compensate for shortcomings on poorly protected messaging systems. Everyone in the industry is getting carried away with their use of the term "security" and it creates nightmares for those of us who can't necessarily assert proper security practices in our environments. Instead, we have know-it-all bosses reading "security bulletins" and having us implement whichever "solution" is the buzzword of the day. IMO, the only thing that the "Outlook Security Patch" is good for is convincing a bunch of ignorant dipsh*ts that their E-mail is safe. "If you don't want a virus, disable automatic script execution and don't double-click the frigging attachment." THAT should be in the stupid Outlook Welcome Message. Eric - Original Message - From: "Wynkoop, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 12:11 PM Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > I should have the option to block attachments or not! > > Explanation: > Some of us (those who work for universities with stupid staff members and > arrogant professors) don't have the option of blocking attachments (Gosh > forbid we infringe on anyone's "academic freedom"). That is unless we wish > to endure a never ending reign of sh*t from above. Instead we have to work > around the vunerabilities found in things such as VBS, EXE, and COM files > (which we have successfully done I might add). We managed to succesfully > ward off NIMDA, Code Red, and a rash of other recent viruses without > changing what users can and can't do (see, it can be done). Now outlook > just gives my users one more reason to jump down my throat when something > doesn't work. Thanks MicroShaft. > > John > > -Original Message- > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 2:45 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > > > Even allowing your mail system to pass .EXE and .COM files is a mistake. > You should thank MS for making OL block those types of files since you > don't. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy David > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 11:41 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > > > For such a typically minor patch? > Where did you get that idea? > > The Patch didnt break Outlook, your lack of preparation did. > > Over and Out. > > -Original Message- > From: Shawn Connelly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 2:30 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > > > You know, it astounds me that so many IT people are blind to Microsoft's > incompetence! > > BTW Mike, your 'car head light' analogy is not even relevant. A more > apt analogy would refer to the Ford Pinto's with the exploding gas > tanks. Sure the user could be mindful of driving only on roads with no > other vehicles, thereby preventing a back-end collision. The 'solution' > in service patch 2 could be likened to Microsoft removing the gas tank > altogether. > > First, I read about 70% of the material related to this service patch. > There are about 20 pages of material relating to this patch and since I > run a dept. with over 50 systems and 6 servers ON MY OWN (no help, not > even support contracts), I really don't have the time (nor is it humanly > possible) to read every patch/update/security document produced by > Microsoft alone (to say nothing about the 50+ other products I look > after). No, I'm not whining!! > > Simply put, this patch broke Outlook!! An email program that cannot > accept > .com and .exe's is damaged! Yes, yes, I know there are other methods > of > receiving files (such as zip'ed) but the point is that no other email > program such as Eudora, Groupwise, Netscape block these attachments. > All Microsoft had to do was to either disable the dangerous capabilities > of .asp,.vbs, (et al) code OR entirely block access to this code. IT > WAS AS SIMPLE AS THAT!! > > Geezz, what's with some of you in this (supposed to be?) friendly > discussions group? > > I sent a message asking about this (yes, I admit it was confrontational) > and I read return responses basically calling me an idiot based on inane > assumptions! > > Of course, I had to risk installing this patch because the risk of an > Outlook-based virus outbreak out weighted the potential annoyance of > breaking Outlook. BTW, I have never experienced a virus outbreak in the > 6 years I've been with this company because of my pro-active stance on > these issues. > > Message to Lori: > "Projec
Re: Haiku Friday
Jobs suck anyway I hate mine the most of all Homeless ain't so bad - Original Message - From: "Martin Blackstone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 5:58 AM Subject: RE: Haiku Friday > No jobs in Cali > Recession has been all year > No work for the best > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tim Ault > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 5:55 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Haiku Friday > > > My resume sits. > Bad time to ache for new job. > We're in recession. > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.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: One OWA web site can service multiple Exchange 5.5 sites?
Not unless there are latency issues as well. And even so, I've found intermittent problems connecting to sites that are separated by multiple connector hops, but Serdar's right that it SHOULD work if you have working dir rep. Eric - Original Message - From: "Soysal, Serdar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:13 AM Subject: RE: One OWA web site can service multiple Exchange 5.5 sites? > As long as you have dir repl setup between sites, there are no issues with > multiple sites. > > S. > > -Original Message- > From: Darryl Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 1:54 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: One OWA web site can service multiple Exchange 5.5 sites? > > > > > I thought OWA (Exchange 5.5) could only service one Exchange site. > Did SP4 enable accessing multiple Exchange sites with one OWA web site? > > > Darryl Harris > AltaVista > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.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: host unreachable
Can you contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] and ask her if she's received the message, or multiple copies of the message? If so, you're probably right about the Cisco fixup_smtp thing. Eric - Original Message - From: "Siegel, Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 11:06 AM Subject: host unreachable > > The question [I'll ask first] is why would mail to this specific domain not > work? All other hosts work. And intellocity claims that they have no > problems from any other mail servers. > now the info: > > I am having a mildy intermittent mail delivery problem, and for the most > part it is non-working vs working.Errors that were discovered linking to > Intellocity are as follows: > > Upon setting Maximum SMTP logging in Exchange 5.5 [I am at actv.com] > - Event 3010 is being recorded in app event log > -Event 2003 is also being recorded app event log > > 3010:An attempt to connect to host intellocity.com failed. > > Event ID 3010 can be caused by the any of the following scenarios: > There is a name resolution issue to the relay host. > There are limitations of the relay host, such as inbound connections are > allowed. > There is a firewall issue. > To continue troubleshooting, run Telnet to determine if the IP address that > is listed in the event is correct. Next, verify that the IP address has a > functioning SMTP port. > > > Event 2003: > A new TCP/IP SMTP connection has been made to host 64.139.16.228 (for > intellocity.com). Logfile: L004.LOG > According to technet: > If an event ID 2003 is reported, a connection has been made to that relay > host. If you are experiencing event 2003 in addition to the other events, > you may need to troubleshoot this issue as an intermittent issue. This event > can occur if the maximum number of inbound connections to the relay host has > been reached. > > I wanted to see where it was actually breaking down- So I went into the raw > SMTP log files and excerpted the following: > > 9/7/2001 2:53:20 PM : <<< IO: |250 OK - Recipient <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | > 9/7/2001 2:53:20 PM : <<< 250 OK - Recipient <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 9/7/2001 2:53:20 PM : >>> DATA > > 9/7/2001 2:53:20 PM : <<< IO: |354 Send data. End with CRLF.CRLF > | > 9/7/2001 2:53:20 PM : <<< 354 Send data. End with CRLF.CRLF > 9/7/2001 2:55:03 PM : 499 Host unreachable: intellocity.com. Message > subject: ""RE: Stock Options"". Rescheduling delivery for later. > > > A technet lookup at this 499 error indicates: > A 499 Error: "No routing hosts are reachable," indicates that the TCP > connection has been dropped. > My guess-obviously I am not a network engineer, is they are running some > extended smtp set, like the cisco smtp fixup protocol or some outside factor > is disconnecting them.? > > Please help. I tried to furnish as much info as I could. > > > Rich > -Original Message- > From: Fogarty, David > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 5:07 PM > To: Mitchell, Gary; Siegel, Richard; @Unix Team > Subject: Email to Intellocity... > > We should document several tests to have on hand when we inevitably get > asked what we've done about the situation An email to Derik with the > tests we've done and the results we obtained would be wise as well. > > I don't want to say "It's not us" though until we're 100% positive. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Logging in Exch2K
How is the connector not the issue if the whole test is to determine whether the connector works with Exchange2k? Maybe this will clarify - you won't be able to track the message as a single entity because when it leaves and re-enters Exchange it is no longer the same message. Maybe you should just try setting logging to Maximum for the "time-the-mail-spends-flailing-about-in-exchange" object. - Original Message - From: "Elizabeth Farrell" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 5:08 PM Subject: RE: Logging in Exch2K > > The connector is not the issue, I need loggin from within Exch2K. > forget about the connector > need logging for the "time-the-mail-spends-flailing-about-in-exchange" which > does not come from the sources I initially specified > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eric Cooper > Sent: 31 October 2001 09:02 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: Logging in Exch2K > > > What kind of connector is it?...jeez > > - Original Message - > From: "Elizabeth Farrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Logging in Exch2K > > > errr.cos the whole point of the test is to ensure the connector works > > with Exch2K. The mail have to follow the sequence of > > sender-Exch2K-Connector(Processing)Connector-Exch2K-Recipient..jeez > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eric Cooper > > Subject: Re: Logging in Exch2K > > > > Why don't you just fire the SMTP mails at the 3rd party connector? What > > product is it? And aren't you afraid you might hurt someone? > > > > Eric > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Elizabeth Farrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Logging in Exch2K > > > > I am firing SMTP mails @ an exchange server, which then fires them to a > > 3rd > > > party connector for processing (AV checking, content checking etc.)to be > > > then fired back into Exchange for delivery. > > > Now I need to see what happens to the mail once it leaves and re-enters > > > Exchange, so is there an option to trace individual mails through their > > life > > > cycle on an exchange 2K server? > > > Message tracking is no good as there is not enough details in there. The > > > badmail folders don't apple and the SMTP logs don't provide enough > > > information, now I am sure that there is a way to do this (turned off by > > > default cos wtf wants to trace the details of 1000+ mails a mo) > > > > > > So if there is such a function, whazzit called and how do I get my > mittens > > > on it? > > > > > > Thanks in advance > > > E> > > > > > > > > > _ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Logging in Exch2K
What kind of connector is it?...jeez - Original Message - From: "Elizabeth Farrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 5:03 PM Subject: RE: Logging in Exch2K > > errr.cos the whole point of the test is to ensure the connector works > with Exch2K. The mail have to follow the sequence of > sender-Exch2K-Connector(Processing)Connector-Exch2K-Recipient..jeez > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eric Cooper > Subject: Re: Logging in Exch2K > > Why don't you just fire the SMTP mails at the 3rd party connector? What > product is it? And aren't you afraid you might hurt someone? > > Eric > > - Original Message - > From: "Elizabeth Farrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Logging in Exch2K > > I am firing SMTP mails @ an exchange server, which then fires them to a > 3rd > > party connector for processing (AV checking, content checking etc.)to be > > then fired back into Exchange for delivery. > > Now I need to see what happens to the mail once it leaves and re-enters > > Exchange, so is there an option to trace individual mails through their > life > > cycle on an exchange 2K server? > > Message tracking is no good as there is not enough details in there. The > > badmail folders don't apple and the SMTP logs don't provide enough > > information, now I am sure that there is a way to do this (turned off by > > default cos wtf wants to trace the details of 1000+ mails a mo) > > > > So if there is such a function, whazzit called and how do I get my mittens > > on it? > > > > Thanks in advance > > E> > > > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Logging in Exch2K
Why don't you just fire the SMTP mails at the 3rd party connector? What product is it? And aren't you afraid you might hurt someone? Eric - Original Message - From: "Elizabeth Farrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 4:46 PM Subject: Logging in Exch2K > > > I am firing SMTP mails @ an exchange server, which then fires them to a 3rd > party connector for processing (AV checking, content checking etc.)to be > then fired back into Exchange for delivery. > Now I need to see what happens to the mail once it leaves and re-enters > Exchange, so is there an option to trace individual mails through their life > cycle on an exchange 2K server? > Message tracking is no good as there is not enough details in there. The > badmail folders don't apple and the SMTP logs don't provide enough > information, now I am sure that there is a way to do this (turned off by > default cos wtf wants to trace the details of 1000+ mails a mo) > > So if there is such a function, whazzit called and how do I get my mittens > on it? > > Thanks in advance > E> > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Export Exchange GAL to csv
Exchange 5.5? Why not use a Directory Replication Connector? If you insist on doing it manually use the Tools/Directory Import and Export tool from the Exchange Admin tool and look for header.exe to help you format your csv files. If Ex2k, disregard. Eric - Original Message - From: "Wilton Rooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 7:57 AM Subject: Export Exchange GAL to csv > I need to export the GAL to a csv file and then ftp to another mail server > for importing. I gather there are utilities for this, but am not sure > which ones. Can anyone point me to a utility or program that does this. > The other mail servers address book will need to be imported into GAL as > well. > Thanks for your help. > Wilton Rooks > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.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: AutoAccept from Exchange Code
Start/Run outlook.exe /cleanfreebusy Eric - Original Message - From: "Phil Labonte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 8:32 AM Subject: RE: AutoAccept from Exchange Code > How do you run the clear free busy option? > --- "Hunter, Lori" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Indeed there is. However, the totally great news is > > that once I took away > > the reviewer permissions for everyone, I have not > > had one single issue with > > the script. I have had many complaints about not > > being able to view the > > calendar, but I can take that! My event service has > > been solid as a rock > > and the free/busy issues are just about gone. I ran > > cleanfreebusy on one > > last week, but that's the first time in over a > > month. > > > > Mr. Mike Mitchell and I had most of this discussion > > on Sue's Outlook list. > > He prefers to let his people keep the reviewer > > permissions against > > everyone's advice, and then had the nerve to > > complain about running > > cleanfreebusy on all his resources. > > > > Of course at the end of the day, I'm still > > exceptional! Your karma points > > are wending their way to you right now. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Mike Morrison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 9:19 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: AutoAccept from Exchange Code > > > > > > Been running it for 3 years or so with no major > > problems. Occasionally have > > to log into the mailbox with the /cleanfreebusy > > switch, but that's been > > about it. I know that Lori Hunter has had some > > ongoing issues with it, but > > she seems to be an exception [1]. Almost all the > > other reports I've seen > > indicate that it works great. There's a wealth of > > discussions in the > > archives, including Lori's travails. > > > > Mike Morrison > > NT/SMS/Exchange Administrator > > Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc. > > > > [1] Sorry Lori... maybe it's because you're > > exceptionAL! :-) > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Phil Labonte [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 10:06 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: AutoAccept from Exchange Code > > > > > > > > I am using Exchange 5.5 with SP4 on NT4.0 SP6 > > > > Does anyone use the Exchange Code Autoaccept script? > > > > If so what are the pitfalls? I have meetingrooms > > being booked using the standard methode microsoft > > recommends but it is not doing what I would like. > > > > This seems like a good option but I wanted to know > > what the others thought. > > > > Phil > > > > __ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. > > http://personals.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] > > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: > > http://www.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!? > Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. > http://personals.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 Backup Modules question.
You can do backups without the Exchange Agents by stopping the services and doing off-line backups. But then, you can't restore to the point of failure (transaction logs won't be applied to an off-line restore). The Exchange agent allows the backup to work with the Exchange System Attendant to backup or restore an online database. Eric - Original Message - From: "Craig Manske" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 10:36 AM Subject: Exchange Backup Modules question. > I am seeing that most Backup Solutions have an extra MS Exchange Agent. But > some of them don't allow individual Mailbox or Public Folder restore. If > their Exchange Agent doesn't go into the Public and Private IS why have an > exchange agent, why not just back up the files with a standard backup? I > guess I figured that an Exchange Backup module's purpose was to get inside > of the public and private IS and back up individual stuff. > > Then again maybe my knowledge of Exchange is lacking. :) > > -cm > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Moving Xchange database to a network Storage location
Yes. You have tried to move the database to an invalid location. Eric - Original Message - From: "The Geek Q" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 2:12 PM Subject: RE: Moving Xchange database to a network Storage location > I have just finished setting up Exchange 2K and when I attempted to move the > Mailbox Database location to a location OTHER that the server it's self I > get a " Invalid location specified" any ideas? > > Thanks, > -Jason > Sys. Admin > Ensynch > > _ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
IIS Front End to OWA 2000?
I'm currently in the early planning phase of an enterprise messaging rollout for a smallish company. I'm well-experienced with Exchange 5.5 and OWA and I've done my share of reading and research on Exchange 2000. The problem is that I've got a client with a pre-existing "fearofExchangeintheDMZ" disease. Since I obviously need to host whatever WWW service for OWA in the DMZ, I need some advice on the front end. Can a vanilla IIS 5.0 installation support the web services for OWA inside the corporate LAN? I've found plenty of info on doing OWA Front End/Back End configurations, but none on IIS-->OWA ones. Is this possible, or does IIS have problems authenticating? or are there ISAPI problems, etc? If this can't be done, I have no problems telling the client that I'm going to put Exchange in his DMZ and do a standard F/E B/E config but I'm going to have to convince him and his cronies that their AD and message store is still safe. Thanks. Eric _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
