RE: Hardware requirements for Front end/ Back end server -- EX2003

[Ken Cornetet]

You do not need a FE/BE setup.

Any decently modern hardware will barely notice 100 users. Besides, a
FE/BE setup doesn't really reduce the CPU load on the mailbox server
unless you are doing SSL.

Also, to do FE/BE you need the enterprise version of exchange (at least
for Exchange 2000 - not sure about E2k3). (Two servers + two enterprise
licenses) / 100 users = extremely high email cost per user! 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JohLex
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 4:46 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Hardware requirements for Front end/ Back end server -- EX2003


Dear All,

I am getting ready to upgrade an Exch 5.5 system running on NT4 to Exch
2003 on Win 2003 and am trying to decide whther or not to use a front
end server. I will have approx. 100 users accessing this server via
POP3/IMAP and another 30 or so via OWA. Additionally I will have another
200 mailboxes in house.

If somone could point me to a web site where I could find some
definitive info on this or share any personal experiences I would be
very grateful.

Thanks and best regards.

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Ken Cornetet]

Matthew, you will find that the PST=BAD has become religious dogma on
this list. In reality, PST files are just another tool, and much like
any other tool (inclined plane, fire, chainsaw, etc) they are neither
inherently good nor evil.

On the other hand, while PST files can serve a useful purpose, they are
definitely in the "chainsaw" category of tools. They can be handy for
some situations, but they need respect, and users of PST files must
understand their limitations.

PST files cannot hit the 2GB file size. If they do, you will corrupt the
PST, and will need a special recovery tool to get back SOME of the data
in the PST. I have heard rumors that the corruption can occur well
before the 2GB mark, so we tell any of our PST users to stay below 1GB.

PST files cannot be backed up while they are open. Any users we have
with PST files run a startup script that zips their PST to a file
server[1], then runs Outlook after the zip is done.

You, as the email admin, have no visibility into these PST files. You
cannot, for example, use exmerge to delete infected emails as you could
if they were in the store.

 
[1] The argument could be made here to remove disk space from the file
server, add it to the exchange server, and don't use the PST file. This
certainly should be done if possible, but isn't always practical.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Joyce
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups


yes, this is my concern.
The main part of my question was what to backup and how often. ...and
retention setting for mailboxes and deleted items.

I need to figure out a robust policy which won't need tobe changed 6
months because of store bloating.

Import all those PSTs is just not something I'm prepared to do.


I can see, that had I not used PSTs and used bigger mailboxes (not
something I could have done, predecessor, etc) then staff would be
forced to managed their mail better.



Matt


--


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Schorr
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:56 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> 
> Really big hard drives is how we do it.
> 
> Our users keep the mail they need and are encouraged to
> dispose of the mail they don't need.  Occasionally they do.
> 
> Of course, we have the luxury of having an abundance of
> storage space on our Exchange servers the bigger challenge is 
> the effect those large information stores can have on backups 
> and restores.
> 
> -Ben-
> Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4
> Director of Information Services
> Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
> http://www.hawaiilawyer.com
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Erick Thompson
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:39 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> I'd recommend a public folder. That way, not only do you have
> access to email from years ago, but all users (with correct 
> permissions) have access, instead of only the user who has it 
> in a PST.
> 
> Erick
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Matthew Joyce
> > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:35 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > 
> > 
> > This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?
> > 
> > How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago
> ? yes, they
> > do need to access these.
> > 
> > What do other organisations do ?
> > 
> > Matt
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve 
> > > Molkentin
> > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:30 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > > 
> > > 
> > > PST = Bad.
> > > 
> > > themolk.
> > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:21 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: Exchange 2003 backups
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > I have just moved from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003. It is a 
> > > > single server setup.
> > > > 
> > > > I used to use BackupExec+Exchange agent to backup to a DLT.
> > > The stores
> > > > and the individual mailboxes were backed up daily and
> > every week I
> > > > would stop the services and do a full backup.
> > > > 
> > > > Before I rush out an pay Veritas for the license upgrade, I 
> > > > thought I would revue the situation.
> > > > 
> > > > Some background info...
> > > > The server has 100gb of raid5 diskspace.
> > > > There is about 125 mailboxes, I expect this to continue
> to rise to
> 
> > > > 250 over the next few years.
> > > > Mailbox sizes used to be about 70mb on 5.5, thi

RE: multiple mailings

[Ken Cornetet]

Simplest way I can think of is to export to a comma separated file,
import in outlook contacts folder, create distribution list, and mail
away (using the distribution list in the BCC field so that everyone on
the list can't see everyone else).

If you can export the addresses one per line, or can write a batch
(perl, vbs, qbasic, etc.) script to get the addresses in that form, blat
can do the email part (hint: see blat's -bf option)

A VBS or Perl program could be written to automate the whole thing
fairly easily. 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Holstrom, Don
J.
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:26 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: multiple mailings


We are using a database that runs over the old FoxPro language, so I
just export into a way the mass mailing can use.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin
Blackstone
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:13 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: multiple mailings

What kind of database is it? I think if you are pulling from a DB, you
would really want a product that could interface with that DB and do all
the mailings, etc. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Holstrom, Don
J.
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 6:23 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: multiple mailings

I am the IT guy at a museum in Washington, D.C. We have an e-mail list
of over 5,000 to whom we send weekly HTML e-mails. My old e-mail
program, PostCast Server & Pro Server, no longer work as they should. So
I am looking for another program.

Is there anything that works within Exchange? 5.5, 2K, or 2003?

The maillist grows and is changed weekly. So I download a new database
for each mailing. Otherwise I could just set up multiple distribution
lists within Outlook.

Anyone else doing something similar to this?

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

RE: OWA 5.5 - Active Directory

[Ken Cornetet]

If you mean native mode Exchange, then yes, OWA 5.5 will break. It will
still work for user IDs that were created BEFORE you went native, but
will not work for users created AFTER you go native. I think the ADC
might be involved in this equation somehow, but I remember this problem
bit us hard.

OWA 5.5 needs some attributes set in AD which no longer get set after
you go native (or was it after you stop ADC - can't remember).

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov,
Andrey
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 3:56 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA 5.5 - Active Directory


When you go native, what are you going to need 5.5 OWA for?

Besides, you can dumb down 2000 OWA to make it feel like 5.5 OWA (that's
what Netscape browsers see when they connect to 2000 OWA)

-Original Message-
From: Miller, Robert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 3:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OWA 5.5 - Active Directory

All,

We just finished migrating all of our Exchange 5.5 servers to Exchange
2000, and are still in mixed mode. I have my 3 original OWA 5.5 servers
online, pointing to an Active Directory servers for lookups. I also have
3 Exchange 2000 Front End servers online serving up OWA 2000. And to
clarify, I have a requirement to keep both versions of OWA running for
an extended period of time. The current configuration works quite well.
I would like to begin the steps of going to native mode. My question is
- when I flip the switch to native mode is there any chance that the 5.5
OWA functionality will break? I spoke with Microsoft regarding this and
the final conclusion was that they had no idea... I am in the process of
building up a native mode environment in the lab to test this, but
figured I would throw it out to the list in hopes that someone else has
already tried this

TIA

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Outsourcing email?

[Ken Cornetet]

We outsource our virus scanning and spam filtering to cinergy
communications. So far it's worked out very well. I must admit that
meeting with them is a bit disconcerting - I've got underwear older than
most of their technical staff, but they do know their stuff!

We debated all the relevant points about security and control, but in
the end decided that the benefits outweighed the risks.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shotton Jolyon
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:00 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outsourcing email?


I suppose.

Any organisation I've worked for that cares that much uses dedicated
networks for data transfer to third parties it has to trust and places
controls on what sort of information can be allowed onto public
networks.

I wouldn't trust the public networks with anything I wanted to keep
secret, particularly not if it was not encrypted.

But you're right, it does provide an extra opportunity.

-Original Message-
From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 December 2003 15:51
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outsourcing email?


I agree, I wouldn't want to run all my internal only mail through a
service provider for spam/virus filtering. As for outgoing mail and
inbound  mail, why make it easy for someone to run a man in the middle
intelligence gathering operation against your company? Running all your
mail through one easy to access service point makes it very easy for
some disgruntled service provider employee (who I don't have any control
over), to make copies of all the mail and then black market it.

Yes, a M-i-T-M attack can be run on the net, but in order to gather the
amounts of data necessary to make it worth while, you need a choke
point. You couldn't get enough information about my business if all you
did was M-I-T-M my mail going to and from Cisco, or some other vendor
like that. 



The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient
or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential
information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the
intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in
reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and delete from your system. 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

OT - Enabling a user for Live Communication Server

[Ken Cornetet]

Off topic (more or less, but hey, IM used to be part of exchange...)

Does anyone have code for enabling a user for LCS? I'd like to
incorporate it into my user provisioning code. The Docs that come with
the LCS SDK are pretty thin.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Hanna
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:53 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Flame Warriors



Given our current message volume.
I'm sure we all remember these... 

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html

--steve
PS: Dude, STFU.




Steve Hanna
Network/Systems Administrator
Niagara Plumbing Supply Company Ltd.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is nothing common about sense.


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Ken Cornetet]

Whoa! Guys! Stop!

UNBIASED

*That* is the crux of the problem with this debate! Taking gifts
(including titles) WOULD BE UNETHICAL *IF* the client had the
expectation of the professional neutrality.

Most IT professionals DO NOT FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY, therefore taking
gifts IS NOT UNETHICAL AS LONG AS the client has no expectation of
neutrality.

Mr. Deckler argues that the IT profession would be better off adopting a
stricter ethical standard, and that may be true. BUT, to judge ethical
behavior today, we must use standards as defined by the IT profession
TODAY, and that standard currently says vendor whoring is fine, SO LONG
AS THE CLIENT ISN'T EXPECTING NEUTRALITY.
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:59 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics


Um, yes it DOES make it unethical. You are accepting a direct gift from
a vendor and then turning around and supposedly giving unbiased
technical advice to a client. That is the definition of "real or
perceived conflict of interest". It does not mean that you WILL act
unethically, but it is OBVIOUSLY a breach of ethical conduct and
conflict of interest rules.

> Sort of. There are no well documented criteria that you apply for and 
> then meet, there are informal criteria that leads to an invitation.=20
> 
> As I said, others must decide whether the criteria meet the expertise 
> they are looking for. That does not make it unethical, as you know.
> 
> I seriously doubt any customer will give you a blank check simply 
> based on being an MVP, but I know I can have a higher degree of trust 
> for the info (usually) a MVP provides in lists like this.
> 
> Best Regards,=20
> 
> Dan Bartley
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:42
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
> 
> Just so that the record is set straight and Deckler doesn't feel the 
> need to write a 2,000-word response to this technical inaccuracy, the 
> title of MVP
> isn't awarded based set standards.  It's rather subjective, I must
> confess.
> 
> Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
> Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
> Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Bartley
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:36 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
> 
> Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or 
> Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title 
> that denotes
> an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to
determine
> if
> the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and
> respect.
> 
> Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions 
> regarding is unethical.
> 
> Rules of ethics are necessary in this business.
> 
> Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of 
> brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone 
> whose priority is to *always* win the "fight" must sacrifice the truth

> and good judgment,
> thereby violating basic ethics.
> 
> Just another opinion :-)
> 
> Best Regards,=20
> 
> Dan Bartley
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
> 
> I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit 
> reading.=20
> 
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=3Dexchange&text_mo
> de=3D=
> &
> lang
> =3Denglish
> 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=3Dexchange&text_mo
> de=3D=
> &
> lang=3Denglish
> 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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=eng

RE: Open Relay/Spamcop

[Ken Cornetet]

I seem to recall that there was a bug (fixed in sp3 maybe?) where if an
SMTP packet had a forged source address of 127.0.0.1, SMTP would relay
it regardless of relay settings.

I may be misremembering the details.

Also, no even half-way correctly firewall would let this type of packet
in.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 11:51 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Open Relay/Spamcop


However, I would welcome any information that proves me otherwise.  i.e.
configure these settings, with the guest account disabled, and prove
that it actually will relay - not authenticated relay, that doesn't
count.  If it is authenticated relay, it is because a password was
compromised. 


Ben Winzenz
Network Engineer
Gardner & White
(317) 581-1580 ext 418


-Original Message-
From: Ben Winzenz 
Posted At: Thursday, December 18, 2003 11:48 AM
Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
Conversation: Open Relay/Spamcop
Subject: RE: Open Relay/Spamcop


I still think you are smoking crack on this, Greg.  I have never seen a
properly configured Exchange 2000 server relay UNLESS a user account was
compromised, or the guest account was enabled.  I've tested it and
tested again, and never found Exchange to relay with those settings. 


Ben Winzenz
Network Engineer
Gardner & White
(317) 581-1580 ext 418


-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Thursday,
December 18, 2003 11:37 AM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
Conversation: Open Relay/Spamcop
Subject: RE: Open Relay/Spamcop


Hey, thanks for the confirmation. People have told me that I am smoking
crack and that the Exchange servers were horribly misconfigured. It's
nice to know that I am not smoking crack.

> I concur with greg ... our server had those settings and we were being

> used as a relay ... turned off "Allow all computers which successfully

> authenticate to relay, regardless of the list above." and that stopped

> it ...
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 11:17 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Re: Open Relay/Spamcop
> 
> 
> This may or may not be the problem, but I have seen spammers able to
> relay off an Exchange server if the following configuration applies:
> 
> 1. If "Anonymous access" is turned on. SMTP Virtual Server properties,

> Access page, Authentication. 2. And, "Allow all computers which
> successfully authenticate to relay, regardless of the list above." is 
> checked. SMTP Virtual Server properties, Access page, Relay.
> 
> 
> 
> > Hello All and Happy Holidays!
> >=20
> > I have a colleague whos Exchange 2000 server is being reported as
> >Open
> 
> > Relay by spamcop for the past month.  I have tested his relay by=20

> >setting up a POP account in Outlook, putting the server that is
> >being=20  reported as Open relay as my Outgoing SMTP server. =3D20 
> >=20  When I try to send a message using Outlook, I get a return 
> >message
> that
> > 550 5.7.1 Unable to relay.  I am relieved that it could not
relay.
> > That is good, however, why then is spamcop still reporting it to
> >be=20  open relay? =3D20 =20  I have checked (over the phone) all his

> >Virtual SMTP Server settings=20  to verify correct configuration.
> >Everything seems to be "checked" or=20  "unchecked" as recommended by

> >Microsoft.
> >=20
> > We have Stopped/Started Services for SMTP =20  The Exchange 2000
> >server is behind a NAT and I have looked into the=20  possibility of 
> >this.  I have been out on the spamcop site and for the=20  life of me

> >cannot find a way to make them check the server again to=20  see if
> >it is closed relay like ORDB does. =3D20 =20  Any ideas or 
> >comments =3D20 =20 =20 =20  Samantha Bridges  Communications 
> >Technician  Macomb Intermediate School District
> > 44001 Garfield Road
> > Clinton Township  MI  48038-1100
> > (586) 228-3300
> >=20
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.misd.net
> >=20
> >=20
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any 
> >attachments,
> 
> > is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain=20
> > confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, 
> > use,
> 
> > disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> >intended=20  recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and 
> >destroy all=20  copies of the original message.
> >=20
> > =3D20
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=3Dexchange&text_mo
> de=3D=
> &
> lang=3Denglish
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/

RE: Open Relay/Spamcop

[Ken Cornetet]

Exchange WILL relay for authenticated users (by default), and it doesn't
have to be the guest account (though that is a common attack).

Have you left your Administrator account named Administrator? Do you
"leak" user IDs to the outside world? Web pages? Email addresses? IM
aliases? Backups run under the user ID "backup"?

Dictionary password attack. Spammers have lots of patience.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 12:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Open Relay/Spamcop


This may very well be the case. I cannot say one way or another. When I
have seen this, it has always been the case that I am there fixing
something else and happen upon this problem, fix it and move on. I DO
know that I have seen it on boxes where the Guest account is disabled,
but that does not rule out the possibility that some other account was
compromised.

> However, I would welcome any information that proves me otherwise.  
> i.e. configure these settings, with the guest account disabled, and 
> prove that it actually will relay - not authenticated relay, that 
> doesn't count.  If it is authenticated relay, it is because a password

> was compromised.=20
> 
> 
> Ben Winzenz
> Network Engineer
> Gardner & White
> (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Winzenz=20
> Posted At: Thursday, December 18, 2003 11:48 AM
> Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> Conversation: Open Relay/Spamcop
> Subject: RE: Open Relay/Spamcop
> 
> 
> I still think you are smoking crack on this, Greg.  I have never seen 
> a properly configured Exchange 2000 server relay UNLESS a user account

> was compromised, or the guest account was enabled.  I've tested it and

> tested again, and never found Exchange to relay with those 
> settings.=20
> 
> 
> Ben Winzenz
> Network Engineer
> Gardner & White
> (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Thursday, 
> December 18, 2003 11:37 AM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> Conversation: Open Relay/Spamcop
> Subject: RE: Open Relay/Spamcop
> 
> 
> Hey, thanks for the confirmation. People have told me that I am 
> smoking crack and that the Exchange servers were horribly 
> misconfigured. It's nice to know that I am not smoking crack.
> 
> > I concur with greg ... our server had those settings and we were 
> > being
> 
> > used as a relay ... turned off "Allow all computers which 
> > successfully
> 
> > authenticate to relay, regardless of the list above." and that 
> > stopped
> 
> > it ...
> >=20
> > Mike
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 11:17 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Re: Open Relay/Spamcop
> >=20
> >=20
> > This may or may not be the problem, but I have seen spammers able 
> >to=20  relay off an Exchange server if the following configuration 
> >applies: =20  1. If "Anonymous access" is turned on. SMTP Virtual 
> >Server properties,
> 
> > Access page, Authentication. 2. And, "Allow all computers which=20  
> >successfully authenticate to relay, regardless of the list above." 
> >is=20  checked. SMTP Virtual Server properties, Access page, Relay. 
> >=20 =20
> >=20
> > > Hello All and Happy Holidays!
> > >=3D20
> > > I have a colleague whos Exchange 2000 server is being reported 
> > >as=20 Open
> >=20
> > > Relay by spamcop for the past month.  I have tested his relay =
> by=3D20
> 
> > >setting up a POP account in Outlook, putting the server that is=20 
> > >being=3D20  reported as Open relay as my Outgoing SMTP server. =
> =3D3D20=20
> > >=3D20  When I try to send a message using Outlook, I get a 
> > >return=20 message
> > that
> > > 550 5.7.1 Unable to relay.  I am relieved that it could not
> relay.
> > > That is good, however, why then is spamcop still reporting it 
> > >to=20 be=3D20  open relay? =3D3D20 =3D20  I have checked (over the 
> > >phone) =
> all his
> 
> > >Virtual SMTP Server settings=3D20  to verify correct configuration.

> > >=20 Everything seems to be "checked" or=3D20  "unchecked" as 
> > >recommended =
> by
> 
> > >Microsoft.
> > >=3D20
> > > We have Stopped/Started Services for SMTP =3D20  The Exchange 
> > >2000=20 server is behind a NAT and I have looked into the=3D20  
> > >possibility =
> of=20
> > >this.  I have been out on the spamcop site and for the=3D20  life 
> > >of =
> me
> 
> > >cannot find a way to make them check the server again to=3D20  see 
> > >if =
> 
> > >it is closed relay like ORDB does. =3D3D20 =3D20  Any ideas or=20 
> > >comments =3D3D20 =3D20 =3D20 =3D20  Samantha Bridges  =
> Communications=20
> > >Technician  Macomb Intermediate School District
> > > 44001 Garfield Road
> > > Clinton Township  MI  48038-1100
> > > (586) 228-3300
> > >=3D20
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > http://www.misd.net
> > >=3D20
> > >=3D20
> > > CONFIDENT

RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

[Ken Cornetet]

Boy, I hate to jump in, but perhaps I can end this...

Greg, in the absolute, you are correct. Accepting *anything* of *any*
value whatsoever from third parties that stand to gain from your
relationship to your client could be considered a breach of ethics - in
the absolute. Even if the "gift" (title, free software, pencils..) does
not influence, the perception of the relationship to the third party is
still tainted.

Note I say "could be". The crux is in the context. Does your client
expect objectivity on your part? That is the critical difference. If an
IT professional bills themselves as providing the very best vendor
neutral solution, then accepting vendor gifts (even titles) could be
considered a breach of ethics. 

Disclosure is another big factor. Has the relationship between you and
the third party been disclosed to the client?

For example, If I hire a lawyer to sue a company, I would every right to
expect that the lawyer not be getting any gratuities whatsoever from
that company. If the lawyer were receiving anything of value (even
titles, which could enhance their status) from the company, that would
be a breech of ethics. Furthermore, I'd expect any past relationship
with the company be disclosed fully to me. Failure of this, even if the
lawyer's performance wasn't actually swayed in the slightest, would
still create a perception of impropriety.

Now, if I call up the local Trane dealer for a new furnace, I certainly
don't expect any objectivity on from him/her. It is not a problem if
Trane has bestowed titles, free trips to the Bahamas, fish tacos, or any
other gratuity to him/her. In fact, the more the better, since that
means they are more than likely competent at what they do.

I'd say IT consultants dealing with Exchange are in the second group.
Most pitch MS solutions, and make no claims of objectivity. Also, when
an IT professional uses something like Microsoft MVP after their name,
that serves as a disclosure to the client that there is an existing
relationship between the consultant and Microsoft.

For sure ethics standards are a slippery beast and make for an ever
changing landscape. It would be simpler if the whole world adopted the
"not even the appearance of impropriety" standard, but that just isn't
going to happen. Therefore, every profession defines, and continually
redefines the "line" that divides ethical from unethical. 





-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 9:44 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5


I will state this again for the 11 millionth and 1 time now. Accepting
direct gifts from third parties, especially significant gifts such as
large dollar items and titles, presents a real or perceived conflict of
interest between an IT professional's client (either the customer or
company that he or she works for) and that third party.

This is the most very basic definition of conflict of interest. One
cannot serve two masters. If you have been given something, and
ESPECIALLY if it is something significant that can be taken away, then
it presents a conflict of interest. This, from an ethical, perspective
is wrong.

This is the logic and the conclusion. It is as simple as that. It is not
only what I believe but WHY I believe it. If someone can prove to me
that this argument is illogical or flawed in some way, then I would
believe something else. I am not close-minded or stubborn. Thus far,
nobody has proven this argument to be flawed in any way. A lot of
personal attacks, I have been called a wife beater, a liar and someone
who starves children, but no one has refuted this most basic argument. I
have never wavered from this argument, this has been the argument since
the beginning that this all started. This is why companies tell their
employees that they must send back gifts in excess of a certain dollar
amount. This is BASIC ETHICS.

Regardless of whether MCSE is unethical or whatever crazy argument you
want to throw at it, this is basic ethics people. If you want to change
my mind, then prove the above argument false. Simple as that.

Now, I don't bring this stuff up. All it causes is this kind of
craziness. Other people bring this stuff up. Exactly why is a mystery to
me. Look at the subject of this message thread for Christ's sake. Are
you kidding me? And it is not like I even threw in one of my whimsical
Microsoft barbs. If someone is going to bring this stuff up, I am
always, ALWAYS going to stick to this perspective and explain things the
way I see them. Nobody has proven this logic wrong in 8 years. But, hey,
I'm willing to think that someone might. There may be a flaw in there
somewhere, that I do not see.

And all this nonsense about "tone" and stating things as "my opinion" is
all crap, a waste of bytes and besides the point. People read what they
want to read in my posts, plain and simple. What is straight talk to one
person is rude 

RE: Diskeeper and Exchange

[Ken Cornetet]

Well, actually your exchange tracking logs, IIS logs (if you are running
OWA), and your BadMail directories actually do thrash quite a bit. 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 3:59 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Diskeeper and Exchange


That works fine, but I seriously doubt that you are gaining much from
it.  How often does your OS drive change?  Exchange tends to use
physical memory rather than the pagefile, and you don't often install
programs, or create documents and such on your Exchange server, right?
To me, that means that there ain't a heck of a lot that is getting
fragmented, even on the OS drive.  While there shouldn't be a problem
running it, why pay for a product that isn't going to gain you much,
especially when Windows 2000 and above have Diskeeper Lite included. 


Ben Winzenz
Network Engineer
Gardner & White
(317) 581-1580 ext 418


-Original Message-
From: Anthony Sollars [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 3:52 PM
Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
Conversation: Diskeeper and Exchange
Subject: RE: Diskeeper and Exchange


To clarify, we only run diskeeper on the OS drives not the drives that
house the logs and/or exchange db's.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony
Sollars
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 12:03 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Diskeeper and Exchange

We run it just fine here on our exchange 5.5 & 2003 without incident. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lori Sagert
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 11:57 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Diskeeper and Exchange

Hello All:

I would like to know if anyone has had bad/good experiences with
Diskeeper running on Exchange 5.5? I do not want to implement it on our
Exchange servers but Mgmt is pushing the issue. I would like to go to
the meeting with some ammunition why it shouldn't be implemented.
Apparently my word isn't enough...;) It might help if I can give them
some concrete proof from other Exchange Admins. Any stories out there?

TIA
Lori

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

[Ken Cornetet]

Coochie Coochie!

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin
Blackstone
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 4:15 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5


http://www.showtimemarketing.com/images/charo.jpg 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ely, Don
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 1:06 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

Who the hell was that?  I don't remember no Charo! 

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 4:07 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

You want to complain? Fine, your Charo. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ely, Don
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:58 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

I wanna be Issac!!  :P 

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 4:03 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

Ed. You're Julie, the coked up cruise director. I'm the Dr. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ely, Don
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:53 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

Ok, so who plays Capt. Stubin?  :p 

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 3:56 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

The Swynk List...
Exciting and New...
Climb Aboard...
We'll be flaming YOU... 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ely, Don
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:47 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

Or is it...

The LOVE Boat...
Exciting and New...
Climb Aboard...
We're expecting YOU... 

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 3:42 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

We have a love connection!! 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rachel Pickens
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:34 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

Hi Neighbor,
I'm just over a ways, off of I75 and Caruth Haven. 
Right across from Northpark mall in the big ugly gold towers. Traffic on
75 is horrid right now.

-Original Message-
From: Eric Fretz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 2:26 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5


I am owned by my MSDN cd cases and Microsoft pens.  Long live the
overlord!

It's raining here (Dallas, TX), too.



(A very wet) Eric Fretz

L-3 Communications
ComCept Division
2800 Discovery Blvd.
Rockwall, TX 75032
tel:   972.772.7501
fax:  972.772.7510



-Original Message-
From: Rachel Pickens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 1:59 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5


Jolyon,
This Greg doesn't see it that way... He thinks the pens and mousepads
are evil, and will corrupt you. But note, he he thinks utility software
should be free. (he mentioned Novell by name) You missed the last
time this subject came up, it raged for a week with no real conclusion.
He is very consistently inconsistant in his logic.

Its raining here too
Rachel

-Original Message-
From: Shotton Jolyon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 1:46 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5


I was going to ask what form this compensation took.

So it's on the level of the free pens the drugs companies give to
doctors rather than being so much greater than the salary your employer
pays that your loyalty lies utterly with Microsoft then?

*Phew*

Also, can I say again that hawaiilawyer.com sounds impossibly glamorous
as I prepare to trudge out of our crumbly dive of an office and across a
very cold and soggy London in the dark.  I love my job but I still need
vitamin D.

> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Schorr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> The sudden absence of "We Love Our MVPs" Post-It pads and MSDN CD
> cases notwithstanding.


The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient
or
entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information
that
is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended
recipient,
you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you
have
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and
delete from your system. 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.s

RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail

[Ken Cornetet]

I thing Greg is saying that a POP3/SMTP user can't send mail OUTSIDE the
organization without relaying (with authentication) turned on.

Which is another good reason to NOT expose Exchange SMTP to the outside
world. It is now apparently common knowledge among spammers that
Exchange defaults to allowing authenticated relaying. If you have this
box checked (Q310380 & Q321825 advises to turn it on), then you are
opening up your domain accounts to dictionary attacks. Even if it isn't
turned on, spammers will STILL try when their scan shows your SMTP host
is Exchange, eating up your bandwidth.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov,
Andrey
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail


Hey there always will be people that don't like POP3.

I perfectly understand how Exchange works by the way. I also perfectly
understand SMTP. Believe me, most SMTP servers out there (Exchange,
iMAIL, SendMail, etc.) accept Anonymous connections. It does not meant
that they relay mail for Anonymous connections.

Also trust me, unless you have misconfigured something on your Exchange
server, Exchange will not relay mail from an anonymous source. But it
will accept ***inbound*** mail from an anonymous source because that's
what it is supposed to do, being an RFC compliant SMTP server et all.

Sincerely,

Andrey Fyodorov, Exchange MVP
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion


-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:00 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail

Yes, you were lucky. I have seen this exact scenario happen a couple
times now. Fydora or whoever apparently did not understand this scenario
but it is a fairly common scenario in small office environments with
people on the road connecting their laptops to hotel networks and the
like. Yes, OWA is available, but there are lots of people in this world
that are always going to hate something like OWA. OWA in 2003 is pretty
sweet, I must say, but there will always be people that don't like.

> It's been a while since I've supported POP3 clients on Exchange (5.5)
but,
> as I recall, I had no issues with anonymous relaying.  I believe that 
> Exchange 5.5 allowed anonymous SMTP inbound connections (that is, 
> connections for mail to be delivered locally) and would allow relaying
by
> authenticated users only.
> 
> Or maybe I was just luckily that the spammers different find this
server?
> 
> Aaron
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:30 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail
> 
> 
> While I am not sure that the "Greg" in this post was directed at me or

> whether this is some new form of abuse and sarcasm, it is pretty much 
> irrelevant as I do have some things to say on this issue.
> 
> The biggest problem that I have had with Exchange on the outside of
the SMTP
> mail chain is anti-spam in a small office environment. It is not that 
> anti-spam functionality does not exist in Exchange, but it is in its
native
> implementation. The issue actually revolves around POP3 users. For
your
> Exchange server to serve as the end-point for SMTP connections from 
> anywhere, you generally have to turn on Anonymous Authentication. This

> allows any SMTP server to connect to yours to send email. Now, let's
say you
> have POP3 users that might be connecting from anywhere they please on
just
> about anyone's network. To allow these people to send email, you have
to
> generally turn go into Relay Restrictions and turn on "Allow all
computers
> which successfully authenticate to relay..." The problem with this is
that
> Anonymous Authentication is also on, so guess what? Spammers can
anonymously
> authenticate and relay spam, because, apparently in the Microsoft
world
> Anonymous Authentication is just as good as any other Authentication.
Oh
> well. And yes, you can turn this checkbox off and set up specific
computers,
> but if they are POP3 clients connecting from anywhere, you are hosed
there
> and if you set up this by domain, you have a whole other set of
problems,
> not the least of which is that this forces a reverse DNS lookup.
> 
> What really needs to happen with this is that Microsoft needs to
simply add
> a checkbox that says something along the lines of "Anonymous
Authentication
> can only send inbound messages and not relay." But, I guess since I am
not
> an MVP the likelihood of this happening is close to zero.
> 
> In terms of speed, I do not have hard numbers, but if you buddy is
making
> rash statements like you indicate, he or she does not either. Tell
your
> buddy to show you the proof or jump off a pier. You may want to be a
little
> more PC. I have only seen an Exchange server's SMTP mail engine u

RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

[Ken Cornetet]

OK, since it is Friday, I declare that further followups to this thread
be done in Haiku!

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 10:05 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5


Now THAT's funny.

> I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance.
> 
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:28 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5
> 
> Shut the fu*k up already, everyone. If anyone wants to continue this 
> childish diatribe, take it offline.
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: SBS Setup

[Ken Cornetet]

Do you mean the apps themselves, or their data files?

I've installed a couple of SBS 2K servers and don't remember any option
to change the location of ISA, Exchange, etc (but then again, I wasn't
looking for it, either).

You can, however, change the location of the applications' data files,
which is what I think you are asking.

I don't think different controllers are warranted, but you will want to
use separate spindles for Exchange and SQL log files and data stores.
This is to facilitate disaster recovery.

If memory serves, the last SBS box I set up had a pair of 36GB drives
and a pair of 72GB drives (each pair RAID1). 8GB of the 36GB pair was
the C: drive, and the remainder used for Exchange logs (if it were
running SQL, it's logs would go there as well). The 72GB pair was split
into two 36GB partitions. One was exclusively Exchange store. The other
was everything else (applications, home directories, profiles, ISA
cache, etc.)


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bowles, John
(OIG/OMP)
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 1:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OT: SBS Setup


All,

I'm trying to figure out what is the best design (hardware wise) for a
SBS server that I will be setting up here in the future.  I'm trying to
figure out what is the best way to maximize the server's resources with
the setup.  One question I do have is.  When you setup SBS can you point
all the different applications (E2K3, SQL, Sharepoint etc) do different
file locations? I tried asking the MS Conceirge people but they didn't
know as well.  I was wondering if it would be a good idea to maybe
seperate some apps and put them on their own controllers.  What do you
recommend?

TIA,
_
John Bowles
Exchange Engineer
OIG/HHS
[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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Backup rituals

[Ken Cornetet]

I would take it kindly if all would refrain from using the "T" word in
my presence. Makes my head hurt just hearing it. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Dixon
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 11:25 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup rituals


Tequila! 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Fretz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 03 December 2003 16:20
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup rituals

Real men drink Stout!

Eric Fretz

L-3 Communications
ComCept Division
2800 Discovery Blvd.
Rockwall, TX 75032
tel:   972.772.7501
fax:  972.772.7510



-Original Message-
From: Arch Willingham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 10:21 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup rituals


Oh yeah...I forgot to add that we do a full backup with Backup Exec each
night. Also, beer is good for you.

Arch

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin
Blackstone
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 11:17 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup rituals


Totally valid question 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dickenson,
Steven
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 8:16 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup rituals

Agreed.  Particularly seeing as how I did weekly full, daily
incremental, and am now switching Backup Exec to daily full as I write
this!

Tony, might I suggest a nap.  ;)

Steven
---
Steven Dickenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Network Administrator
The Key School, Annapolis Maryland 

-Original Message-
From: Arch Willingham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 11:09 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup rituals


I thought it was a good question.

Arch

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Eric Fretz
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 10:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup rituals


I'm not asking how to administer my infrastructure.  I've got my ways of
doing things and I'm asking my peers if they have better ideas.  If I
started asking you guys how to add user accounts or "What is SMTP", then
yes, I deserve to be pimp-slapped.

Eric Fretz

L-3 Communications
ComCept Division
2800 Discovery Blvd.
Rockwall, TX 75032
tel:   972.772.7501
fax:  972.772.7510



-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 9:43 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup rituals


If you have a issue that is one thing. But to ask us how to administer
your 
infrastructure is another. If your new to Exchange then take some
training 
courses first. Many of your questions as of late are basic.


From: Eric Fretz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Backup rituals
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:36:47 -0600

I'm using DLT 80/160 drives and tapes, so I've got the Tape space.  I
thought that daily full backups would just be a waste of tape space and
time, but maybe not.  Is your reason for doing full daily backups for
quick recovery (e.g. reover from a single tape)???

Thanks,

Eric Fretz

L-3 Communications
ComCept Division
2800 Discovery Blvd.
Rockwall, TX 75032
tel:   972.772.7501
fax:  972.772.7510



-Original Message-
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 9:35 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup rituals


I prefer full backup every day.


-Original Message-
From: Eric Fretz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 10:27 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Backup rituals

What backup rituals do you guys use on your Exchange sites?  I've looked
through the FAQs and read most of the relevant Microsoft Qxxx articles
on Exchange administration, but I haven't found "the" way to do good
backups. My first blush is to backup the entire databases + logs once a
week and then backup the incremental changes to the logs daily.

All suggestions, snide remarks and pithy one-liners are welcome...

Thanks,
Eric

Eric Fretz

L-3 Communications
ComCept Division
2800 Discovery Blvd.
Rockwall, TX 75032
tel:   972.772.7501
fax:  972.772.7510

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:

RE: Exchange IM

[Ken Cornetet]

You can have Windows Messenger 5 and MSN Messenger 6 installed
side-by-side if you are running XP.

-Original Message-
From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1:58 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange IM


Outlook doesn't come with an IM client.  It's a separate download, or
you can use the one that comes built-in with Windows XP/Windows 2000
(updated to newest version, of course).  I am using Office 2003, yet my
IM client is Windows Messenger v5.0.

Also, to answer another question about having 2 versions side by side,
my experience is that you can only have 1 MSN Messenger/Windows
Messenger client installed.  If you install 6.0, it will replace 5.0 and
you will no longer have Exchange IM support.  I found this out the hard
way a while ago. 


Ben Winzenz
Network Engineer
Gardner & White
(317) 581-1580 ext 418


-Original Message-
From: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1:50 PM
Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
Conversation: Exchange IM
Subject: Exchange IM


Is the chat/IM client that comes with Outlook 2003 the same one that
comes with Outlook 2000? Or is it the version of Exchange that
determines the version of the IM client?

I'm thinking about rolling out an IM system, but we're going to be
moving to Outlook 2003 before the year is up, so I don't want to invest
in user training if it the versions are different.

Thanks,
Erick

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: 4 Gig's of RAM

[Ken Cornetet]

Yeah, the switch is called "remove 3GB of RAM, or install Advanced
Server".

Seriously, Q266096 as interpreted by me, says that if you are running
exchange on more that 1GB RAM, you must have the /3GB switch, and that
means you must have Advanced Server. Other people on this list (who are
smarter than me) interpret the article differently, but it seems pretty
clear to me.

-Original Message-
From: Eric Holtzclaw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 2:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: 4 Gig's of RAM


I have a 2000 AS with E2K with 4 Gig's of RAM, I keep getting: The
virtual memory necessary to run your Exchange server is fragmented in
such a way that normal operation may begin to fail. It is highly
recommended  that you restart all Exchange services to correct this
issue AND I DID.

Is there any special memory switch for WIN2K and E2K for 4 gig's of RAM?

Eric

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: SMTP testing tools

[Ken Cornetet]

Blat with the -debug option

-Original Message-
From: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 4:57 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: SMTP testing tools


Does anyone know of some good remote/local applications that allow one
to test SMTP connections? Something where I could put in an email, and
SMTP server, and it would show me the trace of the communications
between the two. 

In the past, I would telnet, but for some reason, the Telnet in Win2k
won't allow a connection to another other ports. A remote/web based tool
would be best as it would also be handy to see what happens from
connections coming from outside of my network.

Thanks,
Erick

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Email frm Exch at command ln/script???

[Ken Cornetet]

The only way to do this without any external scripts or programs is to
share out the pickup directory on your Exchange server, create a
specially formatted file (with RFC822 To:, From:, Subject:, etc headers)
and drop it in the shared directory. This wont get you MIME attachments,
though. 

If you want to "attach" files to the email, you will have to use a
program to encode them in either base64 or uuencode. That's going to
require one "something else to worry about" right there.

You may as well use blat. It works great.

The other path would be CDO/MAPI or Outlook via VBScript. Persits
software has a free COM object that can send MAPI mail with attachments.
Likewise, Outlook can be "driven" via VBScript.



-Original Message-
From: Mellott, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 12:12 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Email frm Exch at command ln/script???


yeah the sendmail does appear to do things like sendmail in unix.. I was
just trying to avoide loading yet another something to worry about... I
was hoping there might be some simple something I could do directly with
the exch smtp (IMS) to do this in a script..etc.(without having to
do huge scripting which i bite at)

bill

-Original Message-
From: Edgington, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 1:09 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Email frm Exch at command ln/script???


yeah... I didn't catch that until too late... I often use PERL with the
SendMail module to send stuff... I believe it supports attachments.. but
don't know for sure... 

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mellott, Bill
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 12:07 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Email frm Exch at command ln/script???

thx 

I thought about doing a telnet to 25...my Q on that is how would I
attach the 3 files which need to go with the e-mail???

BLAT - I used it a couple times..it's an option...was hoping to avoide
another something if poss..

Ok if I preformat...again how would I attach the 3 files I need
to...

More detail:
See Ive got these 3 files I need to attach to the e-mail...2 are excel,
1 is ZIP. 
these things need to go to an e-mail address every few hours...

thx
bill



-Original Message-
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 1:00 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Email frm Exch at command ln/script???


You can use Telnet on port 25, connect to your Exchange server and send
a message.

Or you could use Blat - a great command line utility for sending mail.

You also should be able to drop a preformatted text file into the Pickup
directory. The file format should be like this


FROM:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SUBJECT: test

This is a test.
.




Sincerely,

Andrey Fyodorov
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion


-Original Message-
From: Mellott, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 12:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Email frm Exch at command ln/script???

Im wondering if there is a way I can e-mail from a command line/script
thru/directly from my exchange box...(Exch55sp4+post, NT4sp6a+post)

Like if I was on my unix box (running sendmail) I might do uuencode
/dr/rpt/rpt.txt |mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] and then cron this 

I did see some of a MS tech note(193685) of loading and using the IIS
SMTP svc to do this... But Id rather not load another svc..etc

SO can anyone one Ya or NA this and/or point me in the direction I need
to go? basically I need to do a script where I can attach like 3 files
to 1 e-mail and have it go out automatically...every X times a day

thx
bill


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang
=english
To uns

RE: OWA and URLScan-Blocked Special Characters

[Ken Cornetet]

IMHO, running URLSCAN on an E2K OWA server is a losing proposition. You
have to open so much up that URLSCAN basically isn't doing anything.

I just talked to a MS guy (he did PSS support for IIS) at a security
class. He seemed pretty adamant that there was a way to use URLSCAN with
100% non-interference with OWA. He's supposed to be sending docs. I'll
post whatever he sends.

For my money, run IIS lockdown (follow the OWA server template), but
turn off URLSCAN. Also, most importantly: KEEP THE SERVER PATCHED


-Original Message-
From: Martin, Jon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OWA and URLScan-Blocked Special Characters


OK, we all know that when you run Urlscan on an Exchange server that you
will not be able to view certain notes in OWA, specifically those notes
with special characters in the subject line. The special characters are
below, along with the reason, according to MS documentation, that these
should be blocked.

..  Allows directory traversals
./  Allows trailing dot on a directory name
\   Allows backslashes in URL
%   Allows escaping after normalization
&   Allows multiple CGI processes to run on a single request


My management wants these characters unblocked. To prevent this I need a
better understanding of what potential problems are being prevented by
the disabling of these characters. The above explanation in the MS
documentation is probably not going to be sufficient. 

Does anyone have a more detailed explanation of the possible exploits
being blocked by disabling these characters??

Thanks.


Jon Martin



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Am I relaying

[Ken Cornetet]

I can't turn it off. Something (exchange?) keeps setting it back to
checked. The system in question is a SBS server, so maybe there is
something unique to SBS.

Also, KB 324958 says it needs to be checked. 

-Original Message-
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 3:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Am I relaying


I'd say, go ahead, there is no harm in turning off AUTH SMTP.

Sincerely,

Andrey Fyodorov
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion


-Original Message-----
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 4:13 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Am I relaying

That true, of course. But if I don't need authenticated relaying, when
can't I turn it off? It is vaguely unsettling to me to allow joe
spammer/cracker/blackhat unlimited dictionary attacks against my server.

Yes, I've renamed all of the common user ids (administrator, guest,
etc). But still...

-Original Message-
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 3:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Am I relaying


If your users are using POP3 or IMAP clients from home, then you may
need to use AUTH SMTP. Or tell your users to use their ISP's SMTP
server. Some users are stubborn and insist on using your server to send
mail.

Sincerely,

Andrey Fyodorov
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion


-----Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 3:57 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Am I relaying

You may be relaying spam even though all of the popular tests say you
relay safe. How? Spammers are getting pretty darned clever and have
noticed that Microsoft SMTP will allow relaying from authenticated users
regardless of the "relay" settings. I've tried turning off the "allow
authenticated users to relay" check box, but something appears to be
turning it back on. All of the Exchange docs I've seen claim that it has
to be checked. Why? I don't need authenticated users relaying mail...

Anyway, KB article 324958 has a procedure for cleaning up and for
checking if you are being used for authenticated relaying. 

-Original Message-
From: Louanne Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 1:08 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Am I relaying


I have all bad mail forwarded to my address.  This morning when I
arrived I saw 18000 messages in my badmail folder.  These were all going
to external addresses and were coming from external addresses.  I was
getting the ndrs in my badmail folder.  If I am not relaying why would
they attempt to send so many.  Wouldn't they see I was not relaying and
not try to send through me?  My immediate thought when I saw this was I
must have some how been hacked and they figured out a way to relay.  How
can I look at these messages to determine if they have been delivered? I
can look at the options of the message and get the message ID and then
track through message tracking but not sure if this is the best method.


Louanne Fournier, CCNA, MCSE 
Technical Analyst
(905) 319-8378 Ext. 240
FAX (905) 319-8397
www.nexterna.com
 
NEXTERNA E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This transmission is intended to be strictly confidential. If you are
not the intended recipient of this message, you may not disclose, print,
copy or disseminate this information. If you have received this in
error, please reply and notify the sender (only) and delete the message.
Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal
criminal law.
 
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 1:44 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Am I relaying

It appears that you are relay secure.

220 exch01.canada.nexterna.com Microsoft ESMTP MAIL Service, Version:
5.0.2195.5 329 ready at  Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:41:45 -0400 helo
ejc2.pacbell.net 250 exch01.canada.nexterna.com Hello [216.103.85.85]
mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 250 2.1.0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK
rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 5.7.1 Unable to relay for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] quit 221 2.0.0 exch01.canada.nexterna.com Service
closing transmission channel


Connection to host lost.

C:\Documents and Settings\EJC2> 


Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Louanne
Fournier
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 10:36 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Am I relaying

Mine? Nexterna.com.

Louanne Fournier, CCNA, MCSE
Technical Analyst
(905) 319-8378 Ext. 240
FAX (905) 319-8397
www.nexterna.com
 
NEXTERNA E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This transmission is intended to be strictly confidential. If you are
not the intended re

RE: Am I relaying

[Ken Cornetet]

That true, of course. But if I don't need authenticated relaying, when
can't I turn it off? It is vaguely unsettling to me to allow joe
spammer/cracker/blackhat unlimited dictionary attacks against my server.

Yes, I've renamed all of the common user ids (administrator, guest,
etc). But still...

-Original Message-
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 3:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Am I relaying


If your users are using POP3 or IMAP clients from home, then you may
need to use AUTH SMTP. Or tell your users to use their ISP's SMTP
server. Some users are stubborn and insist on using your server to send
mail.

Sincerely,

Andrey Fyodorov
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion


-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 3:57 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Am I relaying

You may be relaying spam even though all of the popular tests say you
relay safe. How? Spammers are getting pretty darned clever and have
noticed that Microsoft SMTP will allow relaying from authenticated users
regardless of the "relay" settings. I've tried turning off the "allow
authenticated users to relay" check box, but something appears to be
turning it back on. All of the Exchange docs I've seen claim that it has
to be checked. Why? I don't need authenticated users relaying mail...

Anyway, KB article 324958 has a procedure for cleaning up and for
checking if you are being used for authenticated relaying. 

-Original Message-
From: Louanne Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 1:08 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Am I relaying


I have all bad mail forwarded to my address.  This morning when I
arrived I saw 18000 messages in my badmail folder.  These were all going
to external addresses and were coming from external addresses.  I was
getting the ndrs in my badmail folder.  If I am not relaying why would
they attempt to send so many.  Wouldn't they see I was not relaying and
not try to send through me?  My immediate thought when I saw this was I
must have some how been hacked and they figured out a way to relay.  How
can I look at these messages to determine if they have been delivered? I
can look at the options of the message and get the message ID and then
track through message tracking but not sure if this is the best method.


Louanne Fournier, CCNA, MCSE 
Technical Analyst
(905) 319-8378 Ext. 240
FAX (905) 319-8397
www.nexterna.com
 
NEXTERNA E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This transmission is intended to be strictly confidential. If you are
not the intended recipient of this message, you may not disclose, print,
copy or disseminate this information. If you have received this in
error, please reply and notify the sender (only) and delete the message.
Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal
criminal law.
 
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 1:44 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Am I relaying

It appears that you are relay secure.

220 exch01.canada.nexterna.com Microsoft ESMTP MAIL Service, Version:
5.0.2195.5 329 ready at  Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:41:45 -0400 helo
ejc2.pacbell.net 250 exch01.canada.nexterna.com Hello [216.103.85.85]
mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 250 2.1.0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK
rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 5.7.1 Unable to relay for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] quit 221 2.0.0 exch01.canada.nexterna.com Service
closing transmission channel


Connection to host lost.

C:\Documents and Settings\EJC2> 


Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Louanne
Fournier
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 10:36 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Am I relaying

Mine? Nexterna.com.

Louanne Fournier, CCNA, MCSE
Technical Analyst
(905) 319-8378 Ext. 240
FAX (905) 319-8397
www.nexterna.com
 
NEXTERNA E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This transmission is intended to be strictly confidential. If you are
not the intended recipient of this message, you may not disclose, print,
copy or disseminate this information. If you have received this in
error, please reply and notify the sender (only) and delete the message.
Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal
criminal law.
 
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 1:31 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Am I relaying

What domain?

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Louann

RE: Am I relaying

[Ken Cornetet]

You may be relaying spam even though all of the popular tests say you
relay safe. How? Spammers are getting pretty darned clever and have
noticed that Microsoft SMTP will allow relaying from authenticated users
regardless of the "relay" settings. I've tried turning off the "allow
authenticated users to relay" check box, but something appears to be
turning it back on. All of the Exchange docs I've seen claim that it has
to be checked. Why? I don't need authenticated users relaying mail...

Anyway, KB article 324958 has a procedure for cleaning up and for
checking if you are being used for authenticated relaying. 

-Original Message-
From: Louanne Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 1:08 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Am I relaying


I have all bad mail forwarded to my address.  This morning when I
arrived I saw 18000 messages in my badmail folder.  These were all going
to external addresses and were coming from external addresses.  I was
getting the ndrs in my badmail folder.  If I am not relaying why would
they attempt to send so many.  Wouldn't they see I was not relaying and
not try to send through me?  My immediate thought when I saw this was I
must have some how been hacked and they figured out a way to relay.  How
can I look at these messages to determine if they have been delivered? I
can look at the options of the message and get the message ID and then
track through message tracking but not sure if this is the best method.


Louanne Fournier, CCNA, MCSE 
Technical Analyst
(905) 319-8378 Ext. 240
FAX (905) 319-8397
www.nexterna.com
 
NEXTERNA E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This transmission is intended to be strictly confidential. If you are
not the intended recipient of this message, you may not disclose, print,
copy or disseminate this information. If you have received this in
error, please reply and notify the sender (only) and delete the message.
Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal
criminal law.
 
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 1:44 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Am I relaying

It appears that you are relay secure.

220 exch01.canada.nexterna.com Microsoft ESMTP MAIL Service, Version:
5.0.2195.5 329 ready at  Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:41:45 -0400 helo
ejc2.pacbell.net 250 exch01.canada.nexterna.com Hello [216.103.85.85]
mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 250 2.1.0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK
rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 5.7.1 Unable to relay for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] quit 221 2.0.0 exch01.canada.nexterna.com Service
closing transmission channel


Connection to host lost.

C:\Documents and Settings\EJC2> 


Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Louanne
Fournier
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 10:36 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Am I relaying

Mine? Nexterna.com.

Louanne Fournier, CCNA, MCSE
Technical Analyst
(905) 319-8378 Ext. 240
FAX (905) 319-8397
www.nexterna.com
 
NEXTERNA E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This transmission is intended to be strictly confidential. If you are
not the intended recipient of this message, you may not disclose, print,
copy or disseminate this information. If you have received this in
error, please reply and notify the sender (only) and delete the message.
Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal
criminal law.
 
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 1:31 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Am I relaying

What domain?

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Louanne
Fournier
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 10:23 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Am I relaying

I am sure I am going to sound like an idiot here...but...how do I check
if it was delivered or not?  Should I use message tracking?

Louanne Fournier, CCNA, MCSE
Technical Analyst
(905) 319-8378 Ext. 240
FAX (905) 319-8397
www.nexterna.com
 
NEXTERNA E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This transmission is intended to be strictly confidential. If you are
not the intended recipient of this message, you may not disclose, print,
copy or disseminate this information. If you have received this in
error, please reply and notify the sender (only) and delete the message.
Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal
criminal law.
 
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy David
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 12:37 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Am I relaying

Are the test messages actually delivered?
Exchange app

RE: Unwanted relaying

[Ken Cornetet]

I just had the same thing happen on a client's SBS2000 server. Turns out
spammers are getting pretty clever and trying authenticated SMTP
connections using common user IDs like "guest" and "backup".

-Original Message-
From: Ed Carrano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 4:07 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Unwanted relaying


Have been battling unwanted relaying.  Queues being created left and
right on smtp virtual server... I am even able to observe sessions being
established.  It seems that the only way to stop them is to take
Exchange 2000 off line. Any help will be appreciated...  Platform does
not matter much... one site saw problem while running Exchange 2000 on
MS Small Business Server, another site had Exchange 2000 on Win2000
Server. 
Help!!!

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Circular Logging in Exchange 2000

[Ken Cornetet]

I just schedule ntbackup nightly on my two SMTP frontends. I have each
server write it's backup file to the other server. It takes up very
little space, automatically clears the logs, and I have the backup
should I ever need it.

-Original Message-
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 10:40 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Circular Logging in Exchange 2000


He says it is his SMTP server. No need to have a TL farm on an SMTP
server.

Sincerely,

Andrey Fyodorov
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion


-Original Message-
From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 11:37 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Circular Logging in Exchange 2000

Why are you enabling Circular logging?  Do you intend to never back up
this server?  Otherwise, with a Full Backup of the Information Store,
all committed logs get flushed.  But to answer your question, circular
logging works fine.  Are you saying that you set Circular logging to
only keep logs for one day?  YIKES!  I sincerely hope that you never
have a disaster that requires rebuilding your server, because if you do,
you WILL have lost mail. 


Ben Winzenz
Network Engineer
Gardner & White
(317) 581-1580 ext 418


-Original Message-
From: Miller, Robert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Friday, September 26, 2003 10:21 AM
Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
Conversation: Circular Logging in Exchange 2000
Subject: Circular Logging in Exchange 2000


All,

I have an inbound SMTP Exchange 2000 server (SP3 with the May rollup)
that I enabled circular logging on and restarted the IS. For some reason
the setting is not being enforced as the partition on which the logs are
homed filled up last night and dis-mounted the Store. I even verified
through ADSI Edit that the MSExchESEParamCircularLog attribute was
indeed changed to 1. Does circular logging just not work in 2000, or am
I missing something?

Thanks

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security

[Ken Cornetet]

Intel bought them for next to nothing.

-Original Message-
From: Hurst, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 3:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security


Yeah,

I remember them in my mainframe days, we used them for our remote
access. Like'em, I thought they sold out.

Cheers

Paul

Standards are like toothbrushes,
everyone wants one but not yours


-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 September 2003 22:55
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security


I couldn't tell you. Our dialup consists of dialing to what essentially
is a world-wide ISP, then firing up a Nortel VPN client. The Nortel
client is apparently pretty tightly integrated with SecurID - I'm
assuming it uses the "native" SecurID API for authentication.

I remember in the old days, when we used Shivas[1] for remote access we
had the same problem. The Shivas were limited to using Tacacs to talk to
SecurID. Tacacs didn't have provisions for querying the user for more
information (next token, new PIN, etc), so these features didn't work.
Then Shiva added Tacacs+, which DID allow for querying the user, and
life was good.

You will need to look at what protocol your authentication mechanism is
using to talk to SecurID and see if you can come up with something that
supports querying the user.


[1] Anyone remember Shiva? I'm constantly amazed at how a company could
literally own the remote access market, then manage to lose everything
in such a short period of time.


-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security


Ken / Roger, 

I know it's OT, but I have a quick question for you two.

We don't have a VPN option here, but we have ~50 users using the tokens
for dial-in.  Occasionally, their tokens will get out of sync and of
course, lock them out after three successive tries.  As Ken indicated,
if the user is two codes ahead or behind, it will put your token in
"Next-Token" mode and is supposed to prompt you onscreen.  However, our
users never see the Next-Token notification on their end.

Why?  Is it because they are using Win9x/ME on their end or is it
because of something on the server end?

Server is NT 4 SP6a in an NT4 domain.

-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 11:54 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security


It really is a cool system.

We're currently using it for VPN access and front ending OWA, and we're
playing with it and some Cisco Aironet wireless devices - requiring
SecurID authentication before you get onto the wireless network.

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.


> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:21 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
> 
> 
> I've not examined the system for several years (I'm just a happy user 
> now, not and admin), but at least at one time SecurID would accept the

> current code (of course),one code behind or one ahead for a total
> window of 3 minutes as Roger notes.
> 
> If the gadget's clock had drifted to more than one minute off, and you

> were TWO codes ahead or behind, the system would additionally prompt 
> for the NEXT code displayed to make sure you were you, and it would 
> update the stored time offset for your gadget. Pretty slick system.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:01 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
> 
> 
> Actually, you've got the system down correctly.
> 
> However, the slack time is +/- 1 minute, so you really get 3 minutes
> per code.
> 
> --
> Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
> Sr. Systems Administrator
> Inovis Inc.
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:29 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
> > 
> > 
> > Forgive me for arguing, but I believe the time alloted for guessing 
> > that third factor is even less than indicated below.  Of course, by 
> > token, I am referring to what RSA calls a "keyfo

RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security

[Ken Cornetet]

I couldn't tell you. Our dialup consists of dialing to what essentially
is a world-wide ISP, then firing up a Nortel VPN client. The Nortel
client is apparently pretty tightly integrated with SecurID - I'm
assuming it uses the "native" SecurID API for authentication.

I remember in the old days, when we used Shivas[1] for remote access we
had the same problem. The Shivas were limited to using Tacacs to talk to
SecurID. Tacacs didn't have provisions for querying the user for more
information (next token, new PIN, etc), so these features didn't work.
Then Shiva added Tacacs+, which DID allow for querying the user, and
life was good.

You will need to look at what protocol your authentication mechanism is
using to talk to SecurID and see if you can come up with something that
supports querying the user.


[1] Anyone remember Shiva? I'm constantly amazed at how a company could
literally own the remote access market, then manage to lose everything
in such a short period of time.


-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security


Ken / Roger, 

I know it's OT, but I have a quick question for you two.

We don't have a VPN option here, but we have ~50 users using the tokens
for dial-in.  Occasionally, their tokens will get out of sync and of
course, lock them out after three successive tries.  As Ken indicated,
if the user is two codes ahead or behind, it will put your token in
"Next-Token" mode and is supposed to prompt you onscreen.  However, our
users never see the Next-Token notification on their end.

Why?  Is it because they are using Win9x/ME on their end or is it
because of something on the server end?

Server is NT 4 SP6a in an NT4 domain.

-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 11:54 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security


It really is a cool system.

We're currently using it for VPN access and front ending OWA, and we're
playing with it and some Cisco Aironet wireless devices - requiring
SecurID authentication before you get onto the wireless network.

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.


> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:21 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
> 
> 
> I've not examined the system for several years (I'm just a happy user
> now, not and admin), but at least at one time SecurID would accept the

> current code (of course),one code behind or one ahead for a total 
> window of 3 minutes as Roger notes.
> 
> If the gadget's clock had drifted to more than one minute off, and you
> were TWO codes ahead or behind, the system would additionally prompt 
> for the NEXT code displayed to make sure you were you, and it would 
> update the stored time offset for your gadget. Pretty slick system.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:01 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
> 
> 
> Actually, you've got the system down correctly.
> 
> However, the slack time is +/- 1 minute, so you really get 3 minutes 
> per code.
> 
> --
> Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
> Sr. Systems Administrator
> Inovis Inc.
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:29 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
> > 
> > 
> > Forgive me for arguing, but I believe the time alloted for guessing
> > that third factor is even less than indicated below.  Of course,
> > by token, I am
> > referring to what RSA calls a "keyfob."  Is that what you are 
> > referring to
> > as well?
> > 
> > Here is what I understand to be the process, from reading the
> > manuals we
> > have:
> > 1.  Upon issuance to the user, you synch the token/keyfob
> > with the the RSA
> > server DB.
> > 2.  A 6-digit code displays for 1 minute on the token.
> > 3.  If used for authentication within that 1 minute period, it is
> > "time-stamped" as to when you entered the Passcode (PIN + 
> > code) and has an
> > additional 1 minute latency period.  Meaning that if you 
&

RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security

[Ken Cornetet]

S!!

Our security folks wanted SecurID for wireless, but we managed to talk
them into just a userid/passwd. We told them NO ONE ELSE was using
SecurID for wireless...

-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 1:54 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security


It really is a cool system.

We're currently using it for VPN access and front ending OWA, and we're
playing with it and some Cisco Aironet wireless devices - requiring
SecurID authentication before you get onto the wireless network.

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.


> -Original Message-----
> From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:21 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
> 
> 
> I've not examined the system for several years (I'm just a happy user 
> now, not and admin), but at least at one time SecurID would accept the

> current code (of course),one code behind or one ahead for a total 
> window of 3 minutes as Roger notes.
> 
> If the gadget's clock had drifted to more than one minute off, and you

> were TWO codes ahead or behind, the system would additionally prompt 
> for the NEXT code displayed to make sure you were you, and it would 
> update the stored time offset for your gadget. Pretty slick system.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:01 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
> 
> 
> Actually, you've got the system down correctly.
> 
> However, the slack time is +/- 1 minute, so you really get 3
> minutes per
> code.
> 
> --
> Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
> Sr. Systems Administrator
> Inovis Inc.
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:29 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
> > 
> > 
> > Forgive me for arguing, but I believe the time alloted for guessing 
> > that third factor is even less than indicated below.  Of course,
> > by token, I am
> > referring to what RSA calls a "keyfob."  Is that what you are 
> > referring to
> > as well?
> > 
> > Here is what I understand to be the process, from reading the 
> > manuals we
> > have:
> > 1.  Upon issuance to the user, you synch the token/keyfob
> > with the the RSA
> > server DB.
> > 2.  A 6-digit code displays for 1 minute on the token.
> > 3.  If used for authentication within that 1 minute period, it is
> > "time-stamped" as to when you entered the Passcode (PIN + 
> > code) and has an
> > additional 1 minute latency period.  Meaning that if you 
> > dial-up and enter
> > your passcode, 30-seconds into the code, you have 1:30 to 
> > connect to the
> > dial-up server and be authenticated.
> > 4.  If you enter the same code after the display has rolled 
> > over however,
> > that code is no longer valid, as the timestamp when you 
> > entered it will no
> > longer match with the timestamp on the server for when that 
> > code was valid.
> > 
> > So the short version is that if you enter the code while it's 
> > displaying on the token, it's good for 1 minute with a 1 minute 
> > latency period.  If you
> > don't enter the number while it's viewable, then you've 
> > missed your window
> > of opportunity, because it was only good for one minute.  Oh 
> > and BTW...if
> > you are trying to guess the code and miss it three times, 
> > regardless of
> > length of time between guesses, it will lock your token until 
> > an admin can
> > reset it.
> > 
> > That's how I understand the process.
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 5:44 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
> > 
> > 
> > It doesn't stop key logging per se, but it renders it ineffective.
> > 
> > The SecurID tokens use a three factor[1] authentication system, in 
> > which the third piece is a 6 digit, one time use code. That code is
> > good for exactly 3

RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security

[Ken Cornetet]

I've not examined the system for several years (I'm just a happy user
now, not and admin), but at least at one time SecurID would accept the
current code (of course),one code behind or one ahead for a total window
of 3 minutes as Roger notes. 

If the gadget's clock had drifted to more than one minute off, and you
were TWO codes ahead or behind, the system would additionally prompt for
the NEXT code displayed to make sure you were you, and it would update
the stored time offset for your gadget. Pretty slick system. 

-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security


Actually, you've got the system down correctly.

However, the slack time is +/- 1 minute, so you really get 3 minutes per
code.

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.


> -Original Message-
> From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:29 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
> 
> 
> Forgive me for arguing, but I believe the time alloted for
> guessing that
> third factor is even less than indicated below.  Of course, 
> by token, I am
> referring to what RSA calls a "keyfob."  Is that what you are 
> referring to
> as well?
> 
> Here is what I understand to be the process, from reading the
> manuals we
> have:
> 1.  Upon issuance to the user, you synch the token/keyfob 
> with the the RSA
> server DB.
> 2.  A 6-digit code displays for 1 minute on the token.
> 3.  If used for authentication within that 1 minute period, it is
> "time-stamped" as to when you entered the Passcode (PIN + 
> code) and has an
> additional 1 minute latency period.  Meaning that if you 
> dial-up and enter
> your passcode, 30-seconds into the code, you have 1:30 to 
> connect to the
> dial-up server and be authenticated.
> 4.  If you enter the same code after the display has rolled 
> over however,
> that code is no longer valid, as the timestamp when you 
> entered it will no
> longer match with the timestamp on the server for when that 
> code was valid.
> 
> So the short version is that if you enter the code while it's
> displaying on
> the token, it's good for 1 minute with a 1 minute latency 
> period.  If you
> don't enter the number while it's viewable, then you've 
> missed your window
> of opportunity, because it was only good for one minute.  Oh 
> and BTW...if
> you are trying to guess the code and miss it three times, 
> regardless of
> length of time between guesses, it will lock your token until 
> an admin can
> reset it.
> 
> That's how I understand the process.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 5:44 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security
> 
> 
> It doesn't stop key logging per se, but it renders it ineffective.
> 
> The SecurID tokens use a three factor[1] authentication
> system, in which the
> third piece is a 6 digit, one time use code. That code is 
> good for exactly 3
> minutes, and once used cannot be used again.
> 
> Therefore, logging the authentication process is useless, as
> you'll only get
> 2 of the 3 factors, and for the third factor, you have a 1 in 
> 1,000,000
> chance, reset every three minutes, to guess that last part.
> 
> Roger
> --
> Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
> Sr. Systems Administrator
> Inovis Inc.
> 
> [1] They call it 2 factor, but you need a username, a PIN,
> and the securID
> token number to log in - that's either 3 or 11, depending on 
> how much of a
> geek you are.
> 
>  snip 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Brick Level Backup

[Ken Cornetet]

I don't do that. Here's the basics of what I do:

Exmerge (with various command line switches that I'm too lazy to look up
right now).
Cd \exmergedata
Del pst.9.zip
Ren pst.8.zip pst.9.zip
Ren pst.7.zip pst.8.zip
...
Ren pst.zip pst.1.zip
Zip -m -9  pst.zip *.pst

This is in a batch file that gets run nightly via the scheduler. I keep
10 days of "snapshots" of select mailboxes. Customer is happy, it was
easy to script, and it didn't cost anything other than a bit of disk
space.


-Original Message-
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 8:27 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Brick Level Backup


But if you keep on dumping new data into the same PST, eventually it
will grow quite large, even if your online mailbox limit is low.

Sincerely,

Andrey Fyodorov
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion


-----Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 6:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Brick Level Backup

This is true. I've never worked with an Exchange system where the
mailbox limits were set anywhere near 2GB, so it's never been an issue
for me.

-Original Message-
From: Alverson, Tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Brick Level Backup


Exmerge fails on mailboxes over 2gig...

Tom 

-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:46 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Brick Level Backup

Exmerge

-Original Message-
From: Aaron Shimmons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 8:19 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Brick Level Backup


Hi all

What is the best brick level backup software for Exchange 2000? I have
gave up on Arcserve as it crashes to many times on critical restores.

Any advice welcome.


Regards
Aaron Shimmons
Network Administrator


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: OWA front end server - licensing and security

[Ken Cornetet]

We use a Network Appliance NetCache in the DMZ as a reverse proxy & SSL
front end. Internet OWA users hit the NetCache with HTTPS, and the
NetCache decrypts and forwards HTTP to a front-end server. Works great,
but was a little pricey.

Also, because OWA likes to send out absolute URLs, there is a widget you
have to install in IIS on the front-end server that makes it change the
outputted URLS from "http:" to "https:". This has the side effect of
making that front-end server unusable from inside traffic. Come to think
of it, I guess you could add another OWA virtual site and not install
the widget on it. Untested.

If the NetCache is too pricey for you, and you've got someone with unix
experience, you can do much the same thing with squid on linux or BSD.



-Original Message-
From: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 6:05 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OWA front end server - licensing and security


I'm setting up OWA in my organization, and I have two choices. I can set
up Exchange on the web server (in the DMZ), and specify it as a front
end server, or I can open port 80 to the primary Exchange server. From a
security standpoint, I really like the first option, but I'm thinking
that I need a second Exchange Enterprise license. Am I correct in this? 

Am I being too paranoid about opening port 80 through to the internal
Exchange server? I've never liked the idea of raw traffic entering my
LAN

Thanks,
Erick

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Brick Level Backup

[Ken Cornetet]

This is true. I've never worked with an Exchange system where the
mailbox limits were set anywhere near 2GB, so it's never been an issue
for me.

-Original Message-
From: Alverson, Tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Brick Level Backup


Exmerge fails on mailboxes over 2gig...

Tom 

-Original Message-----
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:46 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Brick Level Backup

Exmerge

-Original Message-
From: Aaron Shimmons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 8:19 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Brick Level Backup


Hi all

What is the best brick level backup software for Exchange 2000? I have
gave up on Arcserve as it crashes to many times on critical restores.

Any advice welcome.


Regards
Aaron Shimmons
Network Administrator


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange Server 2000 / 2003 Phonebook ASP Help

[Ken Cornetet]

Care to learn Perl?

Net::LDAP makes it easy (well, as easy as LDAP gets...) to get the info
out of AD. You could write it as a comma delimited file, and use Outlook
to import it to the public folder.

Or you could use Win32::OLE to access MAPI functions to sync AD and the
public folder. Although I will say that MAPI is sorta ugly when used to
manage contact information.

While I don't have anything close to what you want, I do have some
samples for doing LDAP against AD and I've done a wee bit of MAPI stuff
too. Let me know if you want it.

-Original Message-
From: Mr Budge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 3:15 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange Server 2000 / 2003 Phonebook ASP Help


I am looking for the best way to have an ASP script pull the phone and
user information out of Active Directory so the information on the users
can be used to populate a phone listing in Exchange 2000 public folder.

I've been looking and can't find the information that I KNOW is out
there.  It wasn't that hard to do for Exchange 5.5 a few years ago, but
I can't find the code I had discovered and modified.

Any help would be GREATLY appreciated.  :)

Mark Budge
Systems Administrator

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Brick Level Backup

[Ken Cornetet]

Tell them to look at Legato Networker. As far as I know, every networker
feature can be accessed via command line utilities.

Networker can do brick level backups of a limited number of mailboxes.
I've never tested it, though.

I'll have to say that although Networker can be a royal pain to use, it
is stable. Also, getting backups going the way you want can be
perplexing, but once Networker says something is backed up, you CAN
recover it. 

As for brick level backups: in general, they are not needed (do a little
research and you will find out why). In the rare case where BLB is
needed, I've always just used exmerge. 



-Original Message-
From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 9:47 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Brick Level Backup


We are being forced to re-evaluate arcserve by our development team
because it's the only product they've found that they can properly
interface with via CLI or API. This isn't for exchange backups, but I
still feel a bit sick about the idea of arcserve being installed on any
of our servers.

We're told that the latest version is stable, but I'm skeptical.

-Original Message-
From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 16 September 2003 15:46
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Brick Level Backup

You won't find many recommendations to perform brick-level backups here.
At least not from competent Exchange Admins.  Do a full online backup,
implement deleted items retention and deleted mailbox retention and go
eat some cookies.

As for your comment about Arkanserve crashing, well I'll be!  I NEVER
had a problem with it when I used it (grin).  Truthfully, Arggserver
is the biggest piece of crap software that I have ever come across.  It
doesn't surprise me that brick-backups/restores fail using it.  I
couldn't even get a good restore from an ONLINE backup using it. 


Ben Winzenz
Network Engineer
Gardner & White
(317) 581-1580 ext 418


-Original Message-
From: Aaron Shimmons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 8:19 AM
Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
Conversation: Brick Level Backup
Subject: Brick Level Backup


Hi all

What is the best brick level backup software for Exchange 2000? I have
gave up on Arcserve as it crashes to many times on critical restores.

Any advice welcome.


Regards
Aaron Shimmons
Network Administrator

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Brick Level Backup

[Ken Cornetet]

Exmerge

-Original Message-
From: Aaron Shimmons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 8:19 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Brick Level Backup


Hi all

What is the best brick level backup software for Exchange 2000? I have
gave up on Arcserve as it crashes to many times on critical restores.

Any advice welcome.


Regards
Aaron Shimmons
Network Administrator

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: MS03-039 & E2K

[Ken Cornetet]

OK, now this really worries me: a second reboot clears up all the
problems. Exchange starts, and there are no new error messages in the
event log.

I'm sure glad I have mirrored drives to break before putting this on in
production!

-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet 
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 8:20 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: MS03-039 & E2K


We just installed the latest RPC fix on two test E2K systems (e2k
enterprise sp3, win2k sp4) and it killed them both. Seeing all sorts of
bad things in the event log.

Has anyone else applied this patch? Any problems?

More details to follow...

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

MS03-039 & E2K

[Ken Cornetet]

We just installed the latest RPC fix on two test E2K systems (e2k
enterprise sp3, win2k sp4) and it killed them both. Seeing all sorts of
bad things in the event log.

Has anyone else applied this patch? Any problems?

More details to follow...

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: New Server

[Ken Cornetet]

A Compaq DL380 G2 (G3 would be better) with one or two CPUs, 1GB of ram

Two 36GB drives in RAID1 for OS, swap, & exchange logs (not the
greatest, but OK for 100 users)
However many 72GB in RAID5 for exchange store.

My personal opinion is to avoid 15K drives - we've had a couple of these
fail.

-Original Message-
From: Vas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 4:41 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: New Server


Hi All

Just a quick question, we currently have Exchange 5.5 on a dinosaur of a
server.  We have just started to use scripts and its forever hanging.
We want to upgrade to Exchange 2000 and a new server.

What spec server would you get   for  stableness and resilience i.e.
processing power, HD space, Memory, Raid etc if you need it for-

100 Users in which are all heavily dependant on email as we are becoming
more of an internet and email company Quite a few mail shots to all our
clients  per week Running a few scripts daily

Cheers for input and advice


Vas


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Delivery to Alternate MX Records

[Ken Cornetet]

Not only are they breaking their email, they are doing it for naught. Spammers often 
PREFER to use a target's second or third MX host. That way, their deluge doesn't have 
to compete with every one else's traffic.




-Original Message-
From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 2:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Delivery to Alternate MX Records


The people you have spoken to are crack smoking maniacs, not an ISP support team. 4xx 
is a temporary error. This is an invitation to try again later. This is what you have. 
 
5.xx would be a fatal error; give up sending email bub it ain't going to happen. You'd 
see this if they'd deleted the mail accounts, blocked you from sending, whatever.
 
To the best of my knowledge the only time that exchange or any other mail system 
"should" look for the next MX record is if it fails to connect to the first one. Not 
if it connects just fine and then gets told to try again later or sod off.

-Original Message- 
From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tue 09/09/2003 00:28 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: Delivery to Alternate MX Records



Hi All,
I'm a bit puzzled by something and I'm hoping that someone can help out. 
There's a particular domain, seanet.com, that we can't send messages to at the moment. 
Any message sent to this domain hangs in the IMC queue with the error, 452 4.3.0 
Cannot write message to disk. According to this ISP's support group they've recently 
reconfigured their main mail server so it can no longer receive messages from the 
outside world, and I assume that the error we're seeing is a result of this 
reconfiguration. They further claim that our server should try to deliver messages to 
their second or third mail server, something it definitely isn't doing.

So here are my questions. Should an Exchange server (5.5, by the way) try the 
next MX record after getting a 452 from the primary server, and are there any settings 
in Exchange that affect this behavior? As an additional philosophical question, does 
it strike anyone else as strange that they should deliberately put an essentially 
malfunctioning server at the address of their first MX record in the name of spam 
fighting and security?

-Peter


__
This message is private or privileged.  If you are not the
person for whom this message is intended, please delete it
and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send
this message to anyone else.



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


.+x
)r뺷yiǶ)٥+rrʸW{j
.+-¦‹-Šx
m¶ŸÿÃ
,Â)Ür‰¿­ë(º·ýì\…öª†ٖy²'µêßiǡ¶Úþ)í™Ùl¥ªä–+-r‰¿r›Šåʸ¬¦W§µêÞÅÈZž­{f¡ץjxž   
b²èº{.nÇ+‰·¦j)m¢Wš½ç±r§él³§‘Ê&!jx.+-i٢žX¬µ§fŠ{0Êy¢

RE: Sobig.F alert

[Ken Cornetet]

Anyone remember comet Kahoutec (sp?)?

-Original Message-
From: Waters, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 2:09 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sobig.F alert


I don't, I am glad that at 3pm on Friday it is an anti-climactic virus
event.

-Original Message-
From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 3:13 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sobig.F alert


This is the most anti climactic virus ever. I want my money back

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steck, Herb
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 12:13 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sobig.F alert


Looks like my upstream has killed routes the all of theseway to go
ISP.

-Original Message-
From: Scott Force [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 2:09 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sobig.F alert


68.38.159.161 and 65.95.193.138 seem to be the last two standing unless
ICMP is turned off on some of the other servers/pc's.


> Because that really wouldn't matter, the theory is that the infect
> machines are going to get their instructions from these 20 masters 
> servers and then launch a distributed attack on the root DNS 
> servers..1 minute left
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mellott, Bill
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 12:01 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Sobig.F alert
> 
> 
> well's that where My q came inChris even put up a piece which said

> they new about 20 servers ..18 OFFL, 2 ONL
> 
> so then they have ID'd these things right? why not publish the IP
> and/or the domain names ..so people could block these too... it just 
> say's about UDP port ..couldnt that also change on the fly?
> 
> bill
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 2:59 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Sobig.F alert
> 
> 
> wouldve been nice for them to publish the IP list so we could block it

> from our firewalls.  Incoming and outgoing.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 1:52 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Sobig.F alert
> 
> 
> If only Arnold wasn't running for governor. We could send him back in
> time to stop Skynet.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steck, Herb
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 11:52 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Sobig.F alert
> 
> 
> As if we all didn't have enough to do?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 1:51 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Sobig.F alert
> 
> 
> T-minus 10 minutes .   Its the end of the world run for your
> lives...
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sagert, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 2:41 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Sobig.F alert
> 
> 
> Yes it is. Since we are not sure what the payload is, we patched for
> the new MDAC security patch. Hey, who knows? Better to be safe than 
> sorry.
> 
> T-minus 20 minutes.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 2:33 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Sobig.F alert
> 
> 
> Oh crap, I didn't think that anyone actually hooked Skynet up to the
> internet.
> 
> T-Minus 30 minutes
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
> Plahtinsky
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 11:33 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Sobig.F alert
> 
> 
> Here is some more info on it. Should be an interesting afternoon.
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/56/32475.html
> 
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1211&e=1&u=/nm/200308
> 22
> /tc_nm/tech_internet_virus_dc&sid=95573372
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Lori Sagert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 1:56 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Sobig.F alert
> 
> 
> FYI...
> 
> http://www.f-secure.com/news/items/news_2003082200.shtml
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode
> =&
> lang=english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Abuse@[x.x.x.x] - Blacklisted

[Ken Cornetet]

Hmmm,
I spent a fair amount of time trying to make this work in MSX 5.5, and
could never make it work. I was told by various members of this list
that it just was not supported.

I'll admit that I've never seen Q194742, though.

-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 6:00 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Blacklisted


Exchange 5.5 has always accepted @IP addresses - Q194742:

SUMMARY
In Exchange Server versions 4.0 and 5.0, it is not possible to send
messages to a user by using the following format: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Address] 

However, in accordance with for Request for Comments (RFC) 821 and
821bis, this is a valid addressing format. 

Microsoft recognizes the need for compliance to this RFC specification.
Microsoft Exchange Server version 5.5 allows for this addressing method
and therefore allows messages to be sent by using this format. The
feature involves a modification to the Exchange Server Internet Mail
Service to understand IPv4 literals. The Internet Mail Service is now
capable of accepting mail inbound, delivering outbound, and rerouting
mail addressed in the format "[EMAIL PROTECTED] Address]," also known as IPv4
literal. 

NOTE: The admin does not allow you to create a proxy of the form
'[EMAIL PROTECTED] Address]' (it strips the brackets). 

For additional information, click the article number below to view the
article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: 
193316 XFOR: How to create addresses of form '[EMAIL PROTECTED] Address] 


--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.


> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 4:56 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Blacklisted
> 
> 
> Unless something has changed in SP4 (we never made it all the way to 
> SP4), Exchange 5.5 does not allow email in the form [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> I have in the past argued this to be non RFC compliant
> behavior, but some
> very sharp people on this list, who's opinions I respect very 
> much, have
> argued otherwise. I will admit the RFC is not unambiguous 
> this point due
> to poor wording.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Scoles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 3:34 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Blacklisted
> 
> 
> We are having problems removing a client from a black list and need a 
> little help.  This particular blacklister wants us to have an email 
> address of [EMAIL PROTECTED] where x.x.x.x refers to the IP of our 
> Exchange server. RFC 1123 talks about this in some detail.  My only 
> problem is that I can't get it to work.  We tried adding an SMTP 
> address for a users account (the user who will be responsible for
> these emails.
> This failed.  I then added the SMTP address to the server under
> Directory Services.  This failed.  I then added it to our IMC as it is
> set to only route mail for our domain (to prevent the server 
> from being
> used as a relay point).  This also fails.  All we get is that 
> the server
> prohibits relaying.  Also, raw mode (recommended by 
> Microsoft) shows the
> address to be correct.  What am I missing?  Here is our setup:
> 
> Exchange 5.5 SP4
> Windows NT SP6a
> 
> 
> Thanks for any help you can provide.
> 
> Damian Scoles
> Senior Technical Analyst
> MCSE+I, CCNP
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Abuse@[x.x.x.x] - Blacklisted

[Ken Cornetet]

Unless something has changed in SP4 (we never made it all the way to
SP4), Exchange 5.5 does not allow email in the form [EMAIL PROTECTED] I
have in the past argued this to be non RFC compliant behavior, but some
very sharp people on this list, who's opinions I respect very much, have
argued otherwise. I will admit the RFC is not unambiguous this point due
to poor wording.

-Original Message-
From: Scoles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 3:34 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Blacklisted


We are having problems removing a client from a black list and need a
little help.  This particular blacklister wants us to have an email
address of [EMAIL PROTECTED] where x.x.x.x refers to the IP of our
Exchange server. RFC 1123 talks about this in some detail.  My only
problem is that I can't get it to work.  We tried adding an SMTP address
for a users account (the user who will be responsible for these emails.
This failed.  I then added the SMTP address to the server under
Directory Services.  This failed.  I then added it to our IMC as it is
set to only route mail for our domain (to prevent the server from being
used as a relay point).  This also fails.  All we get is that the server
prohibits relaying.  Also, raw mode (recommended by Microsoft) shows the
address to be correct.  What am I missing?  Here is our setup:

Exchange 5.5 SP4
Windows NT SP6a


Thanks for any help you can provide.

Damian Scoles
Senior Technical Analyst
MCSE+I, CCNP

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: LDAP Query

[Ken Cornetet]

AD by default will not allow LDAP searches. You must either bind or
change AD if you want users to be able to search.

As Ed mentions, you can use port 3268 on a GC to get users from all of
the domains in your forest (most attributes, anyway). Otherwise, you'll
just get users for the one domain.

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 2:48 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: LDAP Query


But of course!  Point the LDAP client to a GC, port 3268, with search
base "dc=aglets,dc=shoestring,dc=com" (if your domain is
aglets.shoestring.com).

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chad
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: LDAP Query

In an all 2000 server (native mode) environment is it possible to query
AD via LDAP? I know in Exchange you just use the Global address list, I
however still have POP/SMTP clients that we would like to set up a
Directory Service to allow them to search AD. I tried to add one of my
Global Catalog servers as an LDAP server on an Outlook client but the
server doesn't respond to the port 389 LDAP request. Has anyone ever
seen this done? I thought AD used LDAP?

Thanks,

Chad Wasinger
Systems Administrator
Alta Colleges

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Users managing Distribution List membership

[Ken Cornetet]

I've got a Perl CGI script that allows users to manage distribution
lists they own. Interested?

-Original Message-
From: Phil Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 6:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Users managing Distribution List membership


Hi All,

FYI: Didn't get any replies so I rang PSS to see if it's going to be
resolved. Apparently not "this is an informational only field"
strange as it appeared to work in mixed mode...but then again maybe that
was using Ex 5.5.

Cheers,
Phil

> -Original Message-
> From: Phil Thomas 
> Sent: Monday, 14 July 2003 8:41 AM
> To:   Exchange Discussions
> Subject:  Users managing Distribution List membership
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Since migrating to Exchange Server 2000 SP3 Native mode any newly 
> created mail enabled groups can't be managed by an Owner (Managed by).

> Q281489 has a "work around" but this is a little tedious as a long 
> term solution and was hoping for a better solution if anyone has one 
> or if this might be fixed in the next SP.
> 
> Thanks in advanced,
> Cheers,
> Phil
> 
>

> Phil Thomas   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> IT Infrastructure Phone:  (07) 38298203   
> Redland Shire Council Mobile: 0408 151 120
>

> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Virtual Memory error

[Ken Cornetet]

I interpret this:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;266096 to mean
that if you have more than 1GB of RAM in an exchange server, you must be
run it on win2k advance and use the "/3GB" switch.

In the past, other knowledgeable Exchange folk have argued against this
interpretation. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 1:06 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Virtual Memory error


My current setup is Windows 2000 (standard) with Exchange 2000
enterprise with 2 gig ram

 I am getting the following error message in the event log
Source:MSExchangeIS, EventID:9582 "The virtual memory to run your
Exchange server is fragmented in such a way that performance may be
affected. It is highly recommended that you restart all Exchange
services to correct this issue." I have checked technet and they talk
about a 3gb switch in the boot.ini if you are running Windows 2000
advanced server, but no other references. Is there any otehr places to
look? Eventually it will degrade to the point I will have to restart the
services and If I restart the services it will go away for a day but
then it returns.

Any help would be appreciated

Thanks

Brian McDonald 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: RE: DR question

[Ken Cornetet]

Actually, the SCSI driver Y *will* be there. NTBACKUP is smart enough[1]
to "merge" the restored hardware info (drivers, etc) into the existing
system rather than overwriting them. As long as your boot/system
partitions have the same drive letter on both the backed up system and
the target system, and the system partition numbers are the same[2], you
should have no problem restoring to different hardware[1][3].

I just recovered several older HP servers to Compaqs and a Dell as part
of our disaster recovery testing.

With that said, the original poster would do better to build a new
server with a new name, and move the mailboxes over. Much simpler.

1. But not quite smart enough. See Q241257 for details
2. If the partitions aren't laid out the same, edit the boot.ini after
the restore, but before the reboot.
3. As long as the HAL is the same. See Q249694 for the gory details.


-Original Message-
From: knighTslayer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 2:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: RE: DR question


What is that issue? The problem with a system state restore is that the
registry and boot files are restored (and cannot be deselected) and this
is specfic to the hardware you are running.  

For example, if the system where you took the system state from has a
SCSI controller X and the new server you are restoring to has SCSI
controller Y, then you are not going to be able to boot as the drivers
and system files and other such important stuff will not be there.  You
can sometimes get around this by installing the driver for controller Y
on the current server then do the backup.  This will just to get the
information/data in the system state, then it's a matter of some clever
tweaking in the recovery console and playing with boot.ini after you do
the restore.

What is the hardware you have?




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wade Robinson
Sent: 30 June 2003 19:37
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: RE: DR question




Sorry I am running Exchange 2000. The Disaster Recovery white paper
outlines several scenarios including recovering to a standby by server
but it list as a first step to restore the Exchange servers windows
system state info. I am not sure if an issue I am  having is hw or
possibly sw related so I would like to recovery to a new windows
install.

thanks


I'm assuming you're running Exchange 5.5 since you didn't say.

Trust me that http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq_appxa.htm is the
best way to do what you want.

You can restore an Exchange database to a server with the same name and
it should work fine.

The bible for such things is
http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/techinfo/administration/55/BackupResto
re.a
sp.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wade Robinson
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 10:58 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: DR question


I would like to perform an Exchange disaster Recovery to a stand by
server without restoring the original server system state information. I
want to move this Exchange environment to a system with a clean OS. If I
rename the current Exchange server than take it off line, bring up the
new box using the original's name add it to the domain and reinstall
Exchange / DR mode restore the Exchange databases and meta data will
this work?  I would like to have the original standing by with the
ability to bring it back online if necessary. Thanks


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


__

RE: How do You guys/gals handle this: OWA Hanging.

[Ken Cornetet]

I don't think you understand what "by design" means in this context. What Microsoft is 
really telling you is: 

"Yes, we realize this is a problem, and although this is still "supported" software, 
we are not going to invest the effort to fix it."

-Original Message-
From: John Strongosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 3:08 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: How do You guys/gals handle this: OWA Hanging.


Robert, thanks for the input, we are in the 1st phase of our 2k migration project. Its 
just seems somehow bizarre that Microsoft designed it this way. I guess I didn't make 
myself understood when I asked this question. So, thru a notification email or some 
other means of notifying your users they know that if one of you exchange servers went 
down that all of the remote users were in effect blocked from using email till the 
server came back up.

john

-Original Message-
From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 12:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: How do You guys/gals handle this: OWA Hanging.


Well I work at an educational institution myself which may be bigger or smaller than 
yours, I don't know and I don't think it matters. We dealt with the problem by 
upgrading to Exchange 2000. Exchange 5.5 is what, six years old now, and hasn't seen a 
lot of new development work since Exchange 2000 (itself 3 years old) was released.  

-Original Message- 
From: John Strongosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Fri 13/06/2003 17:58 
To: Exchange Discussions 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: How do You guys/gals handle this: OWA Hanging.



I agree with Ed myself, and it happens that way here as we are a educational
institution and students come first. But its the idea that this has affected
all of the campus's not just one group and I know I'm going to hear about it
Monday( its the summer and allot of Professor's are on break). So I just
tell them to suck it up and live with it, that this is the way it was
designed. And they are going to ask me well how do other institution's
bigger than our self handle this and I say they just suck it up...ya
right...

john


-Original Message-
From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:41 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: How do You guys/gals handle this: OWA Hanging.


I don't want to speak for Ed but I understand him to say that normally,
servers shouldn't be disappearing during the times when user access them.
If
you must do maintenance on them such that the machines must be shut down,
you
should do so during off hours or during a negotiated maintenance period
during which the users understand that services won't be available. 



>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Strongosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 12:37 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
>
> I didn't say routinely, and I don't, but we've had to so they
> can upgrade
> the power at one of the campus's. So what your telling me
> that is at PacBell
> (where I'm assuming you work)when one of the exchange servers
> go offline for
> what ever reason then users who are using owa just have to
> wait till it
> comes backup.
>
> john
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:31 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: How do You guys/gals handle this: OWA Hanging.
>
>
> I just gave you two.  Frankly, you shouldn't be taking
> Exchange servers
> offline routinely.
>
> Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
> Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
> Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John
> Strongosky
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:25 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: How do You guys/gals handle this: OWA Hanging.
>
>
> Thanks for the reply Ed, so this is how you handle the
> situation. There has
> to be a work around...or am I being to hopeful.. Does anybody
> know why this
> is by "design"? It does not make sense to me.
>
> john
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 8:58 AM
> To: Exchange Dis

RE: E2K machine services hanging on starting

[Ken Cornetet]

I'm talking about OWA2k.

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 11:33 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K machine services hanging on starting


Exchange 5.5 OWA is really MAPI, as I recall, the M: showing in IIS
isn't important.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:25 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K machine services hanging on starting


Does this break OWA? OWA seems to use M:

-Original Message-
From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 11:11 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K machine services hanging on starting


More of a script than a reg hack...

It's a part of my standard E2k server build!

http://support.microsoft.com/?id=305145

Neil

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: 13 June 2003 17:08
Posted To: Swynk Exchange List
Conversation: E2K machine services hanging on starting
Subject: RE: E2K machine services hanging on starting


There's a reg hack that will hide the M: and put that part of the issue
to bed for good.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Dann
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 5:36 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K machine services hanging on starting


Acknowledged that the M drive is special, can't say it is non existent
as it appears in the folder tree. The question is more about how to
avoid the interactions that cause the hanging behaviour. 

Knowing the mechanism of the lockup would be useful. Setting the
exclusion on an anti virus product should be easy, the backup agent
shouldn't need configuration to exclude drives, that is something done
when specifying a backup. This is why I suspect dependencies may be an
issue (the basic backup agent wouldn't know about Exchange).

If anyone has seen this behaviour it would be interesting to know what
they found. If it hasn't been seen then maybe I should be looking for a
cause not related to Exchange.

regards,
Richard Dann

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 June 2003 19:01
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K machine services hanging on starting


As I'm sure everyone will tell you shortly, there is no M: drive.  It
does not exist.  Make sure nothing tries to touch the non-existent M:
drive, especially AV products.

David

-Original Message-
From: Richard Dann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:55 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: E2K machine services hanging on starting


I've got an Exchange 2000 SP3 machine running on a security hardened W2K
SP3 machine. If I attempt to run an anti virus product on the non
Exchange files I've had problems with services hanging on starting (if
the AV was allowed to scan the M drive all sorts of things started
locking up).

I've also tried installing a backup application (HP Omniback) to allow
backup to a large tape silo. this caused similar problems (SRS service
showed up as Starting, unable to start or stop other services) until I
set it to manual start and let everything else start first. 

Has anyone seen similar problems? Do I need to set a dependency for the
backup service or is there something more fundamental going on?

regards,
Richard Dann

 Telenor Business Solutions, a division of international telecoms
organisation Telenor, is a leading European Communications Service
Provider. For further information, visit
http://www.telenorbusinesssolutions.co.uk. 

With the exclusion of purchase orders/requests with reference to repair
quotations the views, information and opinion contained in this e-mail
are that of the author. Where it is intended to place reliance upon any
statement made, then a formal confirmation should be requested. 


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Telenor Business Solutions, a division of international telecoms
organisation Telenor, is

RE: E2K machine services hanging on starting

[Ken Cornetet]

Does this break OWA? OWA seems to use M:

-Original Message-
From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 11:11 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K machine services hanging on starting


More of a script than a reg hack...

It's a part of my standard E2k server build!

http://support.microsoft.com/?id=305145

Neil

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: 13 June 2003 17:08
Posted To: Swynk Exchange List
Conversation: E2K machine services hanging on starting
Subject: RE: E2K machine services hanging on starting


There's a reg hack that will hide the M: and put that part of the issue
to bed for good.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Dann
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 5:36 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K machine services hanging on starting


Acknowledged that the M drive is special, can't say it is non existent
as it appears in the folder tree. The question is more about how to
avoid the interactions that cause the hanging behaviour. 

Knowing the mechanism of the lockup would be useful. Setting the
exclusion on an anti virus product should be easy, the backup agent
shouldn't need configuration to exclude drives, that is something done
when specifying a backup. This is why I suspect dependencies may be an
issue (the basic backup agent wouldn't know about Exchange).

If anyone has seen this behaviour it would be interesting to know what
they found. If it hasn't been seen then maybe I should be looking for a
cause not related to Exchange.

regards,
Richard Dann

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 June 2003 19:01
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K machine services hanging on starting


As I'm sure everyone will tell you shortly, there is no M: drive.  It
does not exist.  Make sure nothing tries to touch the non-existent M:
drive, especially AV products.

David

-Original Message-
From: Richard Dann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:55 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: E2K machine services hanging on starting


I've got an Exchange 2000 SP3 machine running on a security hardened W2K
SP3 machine. If I attempt to run an anti virus product on the non
Exchange files I've had problems with services hanging on starting (if
the AV was allowed to scan the M drive all sorts of things started
locking up).

I've also tried installing a backup application (HP Omniback) to allow
backup to a large tape silo. this caused similar problems (SRS service
showed up as Starting, unable to start or stop other services) until I
set it to manual start and let everything else start first. 

Has anyone seen similar problems? Do I need to set a dependency for the
backup service or is there something more fundamental going on?

regards,
Richard Dann

 Telenor Business Solutions, a division of international telecoms
organisation Telenor, is a leading European Communications Service
Provider. For further information, visit
http://www.telenorbusinesssolutions.co.uk. 

With the exclusion of purchase orders/requests with reference to repair
quotations the views, information and opinion contained in this e-mail
are that of the author. Where it is intended to place reliance upon any
statement made, then a formal confirmation should be requested. 


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Telenor Business Solutions, a division of international telecoms
organisation Telenor, is a leading European Communications Service
Provider. For further information, visit
http://www.telenorbusinesssolutions.co.uk. 

With the exclusion of purchase orders/requests with reference to repair
quotations the views, information and opinion contained in this e-mail
are that of the author. Where it is intended to place reliance upon any
statement made, then a formal confirmation should be requested. 


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin: 

RE: Strange Question

[Ken Cornetet]

I envision a solution like this:

Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, whatever)
where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered recipient - that
would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app
sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a "flag" (flat file,
database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient.

The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient clicks on to
acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag.

Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every few minutes)
checks for flags and resends reminders.



-Original Message-
From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Strange Question


Alright...
That didn't go over so well.
He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix.

2 willing participants.
Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type of request
from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, respond
in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then it will
re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two willing
participants definitely seems more like something, no? It seems to me
like when he gets and email from certain people he wants it to go to
some reminder type of a system although the sender is the person that
would set the reminder intervals. confused?


Avi



-Original Message-
From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Strange Question


"Can we go to mount Splashmore?" 
"Can we go to mount Splashmore?" 
"Can we go to mount Splashmore?" 
"Can we go to mount Splashmore?" 
"Can we go to mount Splashmore?" 
"Can we go to mount Splashmore?" 
"Can we go to mount Splashmore?" 
"Can we go to mount Splashmore?" 

> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:50 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> 
> Then tell him you will send him pages every 2 minutes, then
> call on his cel phone every minute, then send him a fax every 
> 30 seconds until he replies about you getting a raise.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:45 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Strange Question
> 
> 
> Lol.  Good answer Andy.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:42 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Re: Strange Question
> 
> 
> Tell your boss you will call him on the phone every 5 minutes
> until you get
> answer.
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Avi Smith-Rapaport" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:22 AM
> Subject: Strange Question
> 
> 
> My boss asked me this morning.
> 
> Is there any type of program or something that if you send
> someone an email,
> it will resend the email let's say every 20 minutes
> 
> until they respond to you?
> 
> He has not told me why he wants this and I did have the
> discussion about the
> behavoral issues etc.
> 
> Avi
> 
> 
> We run exchange 2k and outlook client
> 
> 
> 
> _
> Avi Smith-Rapaport / MIS Director
> Star Supply Co.
> 1040 State Street * New Haven, CT 06511
> Voice: 203.772.2240 * Fax: 203.865.7827
> [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=exchange&t
> ext_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=exchange&t
> ext_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=exchange&t
> ext_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=exchange&t
> ext_mode=&lang=english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.c

RE: Global Catalog and EX2K

[Ken Cornetet]

My experience seems to indicate that this is indeed true for OL2002 - I
assume OL2K is the same.

BTW, OL98 seems to not be able to switch GCs even after being restarted.


We recently un-GC'd a DC because we were having problems with it. All of
the OL2K clients that were using it had to be restarted. We eventually
had to re-GC it because our few remaining OL98 clients wouldn't work.

-Original Message-
From: Pham, Tuan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:11 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Global Catalog and EX2K


Is it true that OL2K can't redirect to the new GC once the current one
assigned by DSAccess is unavailable?  I heard that you have to restart
OL in order to map the available one.  If that the case then it's a big
dis-advantage to the clients, because what if I took down the one of the
GC then all clients have to restart their OL.  Can someone confirm this
for me please?   Thanks!

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Synchronize separate E2K GAL's

[Ken Cornetet]

The new "free" MMS only comes with the enterprise version of Windows
2003 server. It does not come with standard. I guess it must need saucer
separation for operation

-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 8:17 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Synchronize separate E2K GAL's


 
I forgot to mention I have no money to spend :-( I am looking forward to
the new version MMS coming soon - the free that is, not the enterprise
version.

Ken
 
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 1:37 AM
To: Exchange Discussions

Or HP LDAP Directory Synchronization Utility. 

Ed Crowley

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 8:17 AM
To: Exchange Discussions

Not directly.  You could use MMS or simplesync or your own scripts. You
might be able to set up a standalone 5.5 environment in the middle and
have an ADC on each side sync through that.  Sounds like a pain in the
neck to me though.


ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released! http://www.swinc.com/erm

 

-Original Message-
From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Tuesday,
May 27, 2003 9:47 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: Synchronize separate E2K GAL's
Subject: Synchronize separate E2K GAL's

Hello,

It it possible to synchronize 2 separate E2K GAL's using the ADC? It
does not appear to be and I am finding very little information on it.

Thanks.

Ken Jasa
Messaging Manager
Weber Shandwick
[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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Mailbox Hacked

[Ken Cornetet]

Hmmm, you are right for at least OutlookXP & E2K (I just tested it), but
I remember testing this on ol98/MSX5.5 and finding that the preview pane
displayed verbatim whatever was in the double-quoted section of the
RFC822 "From" header, irregardless of ResolveP2.

-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 1:12 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Mailbox Hacked


Whether that is the case or not depends on the server's ResolveP2
settings.

On 3/28/03 12:28, "Ken Cornetet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> They will get the SMTP address in the "From" field *if* they open the 
> message to read it. If they use the preview pane, they get no such 
> indication.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 11:32 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Mailbox Hacked
> 
> 
> Hi there
> 
> Yes, this is possible.  RFC2821 - SMTP does not require 
> authentication. However, here are some of the tip-offs:
> 
> Every time I have seen this done, you get the SMTP address in the from

> field rather than a name Check the header of the email.  That will 
> tell you where everything came from
> 
> HTH
> 
> Russell
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Patrick Scribner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 5:07 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> 
> Is it possible that someone Telneted into the IMC and sent the message

> to the Sales Manager from his boss?  It's really not that hard to 
> spoof like that from the inside.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Patrick Scribner, MCSE
> DBA
> Westwood College
> 720-524-5137
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 1:25 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Mailbox Hacked
> 
> 
> Look at the message headers to be sure that it isn't from the 
> Internet. If it is from the Internet, search TechNet for "ResolveP2" 
> (without the
> quotes) and you can make sure that mail from the Internet doesn't look
> like mail from within.  If you determine that the message was
generated
> internally, then you should strap every administrator who could grant
> themselves permissions to send as the manager into a lie detector and
> terminate the one who fails.  If they all pass, then you should
tighten
> up your security by eliminating unnecessary administrative accounts
and
> changing passwords on the remaining ones.
> 
> Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
> Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
> Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanjeev 
> Sharma
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 12:18 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Mailbox Hacked
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> One of our sales managers received an email message from his boss 
> about a job opportunity in another company and the boss claiming that 
> his mailbox is hacked and he never sent that message which I believe 
> that because why would any manager do that. Now, the very first thing 
> came to mind that someone got into his mailbox and sent that message 
> but what's strange is that I got into his mailbox and browsed through 
> his sent items and I do not see that message in his sent items. I 
> can't think of anything else. Please help me understand that how can 
> it be possible? 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: 

RE: Mailbox Hacked

[Ken Cornetet]

They will get the SMTP address in the "From" field *if* they open the
message to read it. If they use the preview pane, they get no such
indication.

-Original Message-
From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 11:32 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mailbox Hacked


Hi there

Yes, this is possible.  RFC2821 - SMTP does not require authentication.
However, here are some of the tip-offs:

Every time I have seen this done, you get the SMTP address in the from
field rather than a name Check the header of the email.  That will tell
you where everything came from

HTH

Russell 


-Original Message-
From: Patrick Scribner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 5:07 PM
To: Exchange Discussions

Is it possible that someone Telneted into the IMC and sent the message
to the Sales Manager from his boss?  It's really not that hard to spoof
like that from the inside.

 
 
Thanks,
 
Patrick Scribner, MCSE
DBA
Westwood College
720-524-5137
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  


-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 1:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mailbox Hacked


Look at the message headers to be sure that it isn't from the Internet.
If it is from the Internet, search TechNet for "ResolveP2" (without the
quotes) and you can make sure that mail from the Internet doesn't look
like mail from within.  If you determine that the message was generated
internally, then you should strap every administrator who could grant
themselves permissions to send as the manager into a lie detector and
terminate the one who fails.  If they all pass, then you should tighten
up your security by eliminating unnecessary administrative accounts and
changing passwords on the remaining ones.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanjeev Sharma
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 12:18 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Mailbox Hacked
Importance: High


One of our sales managers received an email message from his boss about
a job opportunity in another company and the boss claiming that his
mailbox is hacked and he never sent that message which I believe that
because why would any manager do that. Now, the very first thing came to
mind that someone got into his mailbox and sent that message but what's
strange is that I got into his mailbox and browsed through his sent
items and I do not see that message in his sent items. I can't think of
anything else. Please help me understand that how can it be possible?
Thanks!


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: OWA and Timeout For Users

[Ken Cornetet]

We have this in lab now. Seems to work well. Added bonus is that it only
has to go on FE servers, allowing me to keep non-microsoft code off the
mailbox servers.

-Original Message-
From: Mark Rotman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 6:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA and Timeout For Users


Third party products provide this ... like SessionGuard at
http://www.messageware.com

Mark


-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 5:54 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: OWA and Timeout For Users


In E2K? Notsomuch.

On 3/26/03 16:46, "Erik L. Vesneski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I am just full of questions today:
> 
> Is there a way to set a timeout so connections to OWA breaks?  I have 
> the connection timeout set to 900 seconds however it does not seem to 
> be working.
>


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Entering login credentials in URL for OWA

[Ken Cornetet]

No, no, no...

If you set it in IIS, Exchange will come around and whack it sooner or
later. This setting must be change in System Manager.

Drill down through "Administrative Groups", "Servers", "Protocols",
"HTTP", "Exchange Virtual Server", and right click on the Exchange
virtual directory. Select "Properties" and click on the "Access" tab.
Click "Authentication". At the bottom will be a spot for default domain.
Repeat for "public".

-Original Message-
From: Public Folder: Exchange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 3:37 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Entering login credentials in URL for OWA


> 
> Comes back with "You must use IIS Admin to manage this
> Virtual Server's properties."

Then there is your answer.  Set the default domain in IIS

-Kevin

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Backup Ex5.5 using NTBackup on Workstation

[Ken Cornetet]

Try adding this to your start of your backup batch file:

Net use \\BPA\ipc$ /user:administrator PasswordForAdministrator

Oh, and you may want to use blat.exe to email results to you.

-Original Message-
From: Chris Quinn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 1:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Backup Ex5.5 using NTBackup on Workstation


After many problems with BackupExec I have decided to follow Paul
Robichaux's advice and try using NT Backup

I have written a batch file to be run on an NT4 workstation with DAT
drive, and Exchange Admin loaded to bake NTBackup Exchange aware.  If I
run this batch file directly, it works fine, but I am trying to get it
to run via the AT scheduler.  I have now found that it will not run as
the scheduler creates a null session without access to the network.  
Q124184 suggests changing the account that the Scheduler uses, but on
the workstation this option is greyed out.

Can anyone give me any pointers on getting this working, or will I have
to run it on the server?

The batch file is as follows:

Ntbackup backup DS \\BPA IS \\BPA /hc:on /t normal /v /d "Blue Planet
Backup" /l c:\backup\daily.log /e

Chris Quinn
IT Manager
Blue Planet Aquarium 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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]

E2K OWA & address translation

[Ken Cornetet]

I'm trying to make E2K OWA available to the Internet by using a PIX to
provide address translation of a public IP address to the internal IP
address of our FE server.


The problem is that OWA seems to insist on putting a http://nts314.kiitest.kimball.com/exchange/kcornet/";> in the head
section of the HTML it is returning. The name nts314.kiitest.kimball.com
is only valid in our internal DNS, not in the external DNS, and I don't
really want to add it.


Is there any way to tell OWA what to use in the host part of the BASE
tag? Or, for you PIX gurus, is there a way to get the PIX to re-write
this tag on the fly?


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: E2K Clustering advice

[Ken Cornetet]

Talk them into using a proxy server to "publish" their front-end server
to the Internet. 

Benefits:

1. You can make the non-clustered FE server the first server in site
without, as Ed points out, having SRS in the DMZ.
2. Much easier to secure a dedicated proxy in a DMZ (one port in, one
out)
3. For a few extra bucks, the proxy can do the SSL stuff, offloading
some cycles from the FE server.

Some possibilities:

1. Network Appliance netcache. 
2. MS ISA server.
3. Apache web server in proxy mode. (To my knowledge, this combination
has never been tried)



-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K Clustering advice


Building the non-clustered front-end as the first server in the site
would mean that your Site Replication Server would reside in the DMZ.
That's even worse than a front-end server in a DMZ; I agree with your
opinion on that.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Dubyn
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 8:15 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: E2K Clustering advice


For those that have done this, I'm looking for some advice on clustering
E2K.  I have a customer with an existing Exchange 5.5 site (1 server)
who wants to setup 1 Exchange 2K Front-End server in the DMZ and then
have a single Exchange 2K cluster on the inside.  

I'm trying to talk them out of OWA altogether and to use Nfuse instead,
but the customer seems to have predetermined this is what they need.  As
for the clustering, I don't see how it's really going to benefit them -
only if the motherboard or memory fails, or for scheduled maintenance on
one of the nodes.  The rest of the server is fault tolerant (power
supply, NIC, disks)

Anyway, as per http://support.microsoft.com/?id=316886 , an Exchange
2000 cluster cannot be the first Exchange 2000 server in a site.  I'm
trying to figure out if the nonclustered Front End server work as the
first server in the site?  It seems that this can be done, but that the
system folders have to be rehomed elsewhere.  Can these be rehomed on
the cluster?  If so, how?  Does anyone have any experience with this?

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: Exchange server level encryption

[Ken Cornetet]

Yes, I meant to say that in my original post, but I didn't. Any
private/public key encryption is going to need the public key of the
recipient. That can be either a pre-defined list, or possibly something
like LDAP. 

-Original Message-
From: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:19 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange server level encryption


Doesn't PGP suffer from the same problem, where the recipients need to
have a PGP key set up?

Erick

- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Cornetet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:38 PM
Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption


I'll assume you are talking about SMIME encryption here. What you want
to do is not possible in the general sense. You need the recipient's
public key in order to encrypt their mail. You would have to have a
predefined list of all possible recipients and their public keys. Even
if you had this list, I know of no products that implement this (but
then again, I've never looked)

You could probably rig something up using PGP on a unix box as an
outbound gateway. But then all your recipients would need PGP to read
the mail.

-Original Message-
From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange server level encryption


Ok, my eyes are going crossed.
I have been trying to figure out a decent way to encrypt all outbound
email from our company. This is for compliance with HIPAA. Does anyone
happen to have any ideas?

I have googled and haven't found a product that looks right. I have
searched for "exchange 2000 encryption", "email encryption", etc. Help?

TIA

Mike

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange server level encryption

[Ken Cornetet]

I'll assume you are talking about SMIME encryption here. What you want
to do is not possible in the general sense. You need the recipient's
public key in order to encrypt their mail. You would have to have a
predefined list of all possible recipients and their public keys. Even
if you had this list, I know of no products that implement this (but
then again, I've never looked)

You could probably rig something up using PGP on a unix box as an
outbound gateway. But then all your recipients would need PGP to read
the mail.

-Original Message-
From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange server level encryption


Ok, my eyes are going crossed. 
I have been trying to figure out a decent way to encrypt all outbound
email from our company. This is for compliance with HIPAA. Does anyone
happen to have any ideas?

I have googled and haven't found a product that looks right. I have
searched for "exchange 2000 encryption", "email encryption", etc. Help?

TIA

Mike

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: E2K OWA & timeouts

[Ken Cornetet]

Thanks for trying but at the end of that Q article:

NOTE: The above setting has to do with the connection between the client
and the server and it does not affect authentication in any way. When
you set the user context time-out to a number, even if this time-out
passes, the client browser will still have the user's credentials cached
and the user will not be prompted for credentials.. 

-Original Message-
From: Edwards, Aaron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 2:03 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K OWA & timeouts


You might give Q294752 a try. I have to say though, it didn't work for
me. I personally like Ed's solution the best.

Aaron

-Original Message-
From: McBee, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 10:54 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K OWA & timeouts


Ken:
Are you looking at MessageWare (http://www.messageware.com)?  I
have not worked with them personally, but I know a couple of folks that
have had good things to say about them.  

Of course, you could always wait for Exchange 2003.  :-)  

Jim


-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Posted At: Friday, February 14, 2003 6:36 AM
Posted To: Exchange Technical Mailing List
Conversation: E2K OWA & timeouts
Subject: E2K OWA & timeouts


We are looking for a solution to E2K OWA's lack of a timeout feature. We
are currently looking at several options, but I thought I'd ask the list
what they are doing?

Suggestions?

Experiences (good or bad)?

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: E2K OWA & timeouts

[Ken Cornetet]

They are on the short list. I was hoping to hear about them.

-Original Message-
From: McBee, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 1:54 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K OWA & timeouts


Ken:
Are you looking at MessageWare (http://www.messageware.com)?  I
have not worked with them personally, but I know a couple of folks that
have had good things to say about them.  

Of course, you could always wait for Exchange 2003.  :-)  

Jim


-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Posted At: Friday, February 14, 2003 6:36 AM
Posted To: Exchange Technical Mailing List
Conversation: E2K OWA & timeouts
Subject: E2K OWA & timeouts


We are looking for a solution to E2K OWA's lack of a timeout feature. We
are currently looking at several options, but I thought I'd ask the list
what they are doing?

Suggestions?

Experiences (good or bad)?

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: E2K OWA & timeouts

[Ken Cornetet]

I'm looking for solutions for our Internet OWA servers.

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 1:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K OWA & timeouts


Schedule periodic reboots of the client computer in question.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 8:36 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: E2K OWA & timeouts


We are looking for a solution to E2K OWA's lack of a timeout feature. We
are currently looking at several options, but I thought I'd ask the list
what they are doing?

Suggestions?

Experiences (good or bad)?

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: E2K OWA & timeouts

[Ken Cornetet]

Of logons so that when #$%@! idio^H^H^H^H users walk away from logged on
sessions someone can't walk in behind them and have their session.

-Original Message-
From: Charles Marriott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 1:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K OWA & timeouts


Timeout of what?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 9:36 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: E2K OWA & timeouts


We are looking for a solution to E2K OWA's lack of a timeout feature. We
are currently looking at several options, but I thought I'd ask the list
what they are doing?

Suggestions?

Experiences (good or bad)?

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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]

E2K OWA & timeouts

[Ken Cornetet]

We are looking for a solution to E2K OWA's lack of a timeout feature. We
are currently looking at several options, but I thought I'd ask the list
what they are doing?

Suggestions?

Experiences (good or bad)?

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Question: ES2k on a DC

[Ken Cornetet]

What applies?

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:54 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Question: ES2k on a DC


That applies to running Exchange 5.5 on a Windows 2000 domain
controller, not Exchange 2000.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 12:48 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Question: ES2k on a DC


I wouldn't exactly say they discourage it - they sell Small Business
Server that runs Exchange (and SQLServer, and ISA) on a domain
controller.

If all you will have is one Exchange server, it's not a problem.

You will see some strange errors in the event log periodically, but a
little research will show that they are expected when everything is
running on one server. 

-Original Message-
From: Trevor Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 11:49 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Question: ES2k on a DC


Hello All,

Two questions in one ...

I know that MS discourages the use of ES2k on a domain controller. Why
is this? Load? Security? Other?  Are there any good articles on this?
Also, does anyone have any comments on the below config:

I have (and will have) well under 100 mailboxes and am planning on using
a Proliant DL380 G3 with 2x2.4 Xeons, 1 GB RAM and two RAID1 36 10k
drives for the OS and the logs and three RAID5 36 10k drives for the
information stores.

Thanks,
Trevor

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Question: ES2k on a DC

[Ken Cornetet]

I wouldn't exactly say they discourage it - they sell Small Business
Server that runs Exchange (and SQLServer, and ISA) on a domain
controller.

If all you will have is one Exchange server, it's not a problem.

You will see some strange errors in the event log periodically, but a
little research will show that they are expected when everything is
running on one server. 

-Original Message-
From: Trevor Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 11:49 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Question: ES2k on a DC


Hello All,

Two questions in one ...

I know that MS discourages the use of ES2k on a domain controller. Why
is this? Load? Security? Other?  Are there any good articles on this?
Also, does anyone have any comments on the below config:

I have (and will have) well under 100 mailboxes and am planning on using
a Proliant DL380 G3 with 2x2.4 Xeons, 1 GB RAM and two RAID1 36 10k
drives for the OS and the logs and three RAID5 36 10k drives for the
information stores.

Thanks,
Trevor

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: WARNING! OWA 5.5 & E2K

[Ken Cornetet]

Our AD domain is still mixed.

-Original Message-
From: Charles Marriott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 9:55 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: WARNING! OWA 5.5 & E2K


I agree in spirit. But, don't you install it from the Exchange 5.5 CD?

Could it be related to the mode of your AD Domain/s?

If all this stuff worked perfectly it wouldn't pay nearly as well. :-)

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 7:43 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: WARNING! OWA 5.5 & E2K


OWA 5.5 isn't exchange, it's just a big vbscript asp program that uses
some COM objects and MAPI to access mail. It worked just fine in our
test lab. Unfortunately, our testing didn't include creating new users
after the switch to native mode, since switching to native mode was the
last thing on the test plan.

-Original Message-
From: Charles Marriott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 9:35 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: WARNING! OWA 5.5 & E2K


Since Exchange 2k native means no 5.5 isn't this what one would expect?


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 3:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: WARNING! OWA 5.5 & E2K


A word of warning! If you plan on using Exchange 5.5 OWA to access E2K
mailboxes, DO NOT GO NATIVE E2K! Any new users created after going
native will not be able to access their mailbox via OWA 5.5.

We opened a PSS call on this and Microsoft confirmed that this will not
work because "legacy" attributes are not created after switching to
native mode. They could not tell us what these "legacy" attributes are
(a quick perusal with LDP seems to indicate there is no obvious
differences in AD attributes).

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: WARNING! OWA 5.5 & E2K

[Ken Cornetet]

OWA 5.5 isn't exchange, it's just a big vbscript asp program that uses
some COM objects and MAPI to access mail. It worked just fine in our
test lab. Unfortunately, our testing didn't include creating new users
after the switch to native mode, since switching to native mode was the
last thing on the test plan.

-Original Message-
From: Charles Marriott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 9:35 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: WARNING! OWA 5.5 & E2K


Since Exchange 2k native means no 5.5 isn't this what one would expect?


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 3:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: WARNING! OWA 5.5 & E2K


A word of warning! If you plan on using Exchange 5.5 OWA to access E2K
mailboxes, DO NOT GO NATIVE E2K! Any new users created after going
native will not be able to access their mailbox via OWA 5.5.

We opened a PSS call on this and Microsoft confirmed that this will not
work because "legacy" attributes are not created after switching to
native mode. They could not tell us what these "legacy" attributes are
(a quick perusal with LDP seems to indicate there is no obvious
differences in AD attributes).

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Importing Contacts from 5.5 to E2K

[Ken Cornetet]

If you aren't afraid to write a wee bit of code, Perl and Net::LDAP can
easily do this assuming you want their mailboxes as contacts in AD.

If you want them as contacts in a public folder, you'll have to use MAPI
or the Outlook COM object.

-Original Message-
From: Arnold, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 9:27 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Importing Contacts from 5.5 to E2K


Good morning all.
I was wondering if anyone knew of an easy way to import Exchange
contacts into Exchange 2000. We have a subsidiary that is running
Exchange 5.5 and quarterly they export their list of mailboxes to us
using the Directory Export tool. We then have to manually massage the
file to get it into the proper csv format for import into Ex2K. (using
the csvde tool)

It's a PITA and I was wondering if anyone knew/used a 3rd party
product/homemade solution to accomplish this. I have looked around on
Slipstick and could not locate an obvious solution.

Thanks
Paul


LEGAL NOTICE:
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may
be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this
e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any
disclosure or copying of the contents or any action taken (or not taken)
in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an
addressee, please inform the sender immediately.

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Letter to Exchange List - Using CDO for Exchange 2000

[Ken Cornetet]

On NT/2K/XP
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Windows
Messaging Subsystem\Profile\DefaultProfile

On 9x
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows Messaging
Subsystem\Profiles\DefaultProfile

-Original Message-
From: Chris tanner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 8:15 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Letter to Exchange List - Using CDO for Exchange 2000


Hello James,

How is she connecting to the Exchange server? Code such as:

' Create Session And Logon
Set oSession = New MAPI.Session
oSession.Logon ShowDialog:=True

will cause MAPI logon dialog to appear, displaying the default Outlook
profile. Pressing OK on that window will cause the program to connect to
the user's mailbox (assuming that user has permission to access the
mailbox).

One can get the name of the default profile from the registry, but I
haven't completely worked this out yet.

Regards,

Chris

-Original Message-
From: James Lavoie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: February 11, 2003 2:17 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Letter to Exchange List - Using CDO for Exchange 2000


I have a programmer trying to send mail using CDO on an Exchange 2000
server. It is not a production machine. She has written a delphi
application to and send mail using CDO. She is able to send email
successfully using the smtp functionality of cdo, but not using the
exchange functionality. When she uses the value "cdoSendUsingExchange"
it returns an error: "Authentication failed".

I have checked everything I can find as far as permissions and policies,
and she is using the administrator account and trying to run the script
locally to the Exchange server without success. Can anyone point me in
the direction I should look to troubleshooting? I hope this is clear, if
not, please ask for clarification and I will be happy to do so.

Thanks a bunch for any help.
J


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: WARNING! OWA 5.5 & E2K

[Ken Cornetet]

Nope, LegacyDN was the first thing I thought of. I perused the AD
attributes and I didn't see anything that jumped out at me. I assume the
attributes in question must be mailbox attributes in the store, not user
attributes in AD.

They didn't seem interested in going further since using 5.5 OWA with
E2K mailboxes isn't supported. We did not push the matter, though. 

We'll probably just escalate getting rid of the reasons to keep 5.5 OWA
so that we can switch to OWA 2000, which, IMHO, is one of the best parts
of E2K anyway.

-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 7:17 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: WARNING! OWA 5.5 & E2K


It's not the MS Exchange legacy DN? Call PSS back and tell them to find
the
attribute(s) in question, they can and if they won't ask them who they'd
like to escalate the call to. You'll likely be able to set those
attributes programmatically.

On 2/11/03 16:02, "Ken Cornetet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



A word of warning! If you plan on using Exchange 5.5 OWA to access E2K 
mailboxes, DO NOT GO NATIVE E2K! Any new users created after going 
native will not be able to access their mailbox via OWA 5.5. 

We opened a PSS call on this and Microsoft confirmed that this will not 
work because "legacy" attributes are not created after switching to 
native mode. They could not tell us what these "legacy" attributes are 
(a quick perusal with LDP seems to indicate there is no obvious 
differences in AD attributes). 



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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]

WARNING! OWA 5.5 & E2K

[Ken Cornetet]

A word of warning! If you plan on using Exchange 5.5 OWA to access E2K
mailboxes, DO NOT GO NATIVE E2K! Any new users created after going
native will not be able to access their mailbox via OWA 5.5.

We opened a PSS call on this and Microsoft confirmed that this will not
work because "legacy" attributes are not created after switching to
native mode. They could not tell us what these "legacy" attributes are
(a quick perusal with LDP seems to indicate there is no obvious
differences in AD attributes).

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Adding a Contact via Visual Basic

[Ken Cornetet]

Did you call the contact object's "save" method?

-Original Message-
From: Chris tanner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:17 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Adding a Contact via Visual Basic


Hello All,

I am trying to write a VB 6 program to add a entry to the contacts
folder. The program will add the entry correctly complete with the
address, but the entry will not appear in the Outlook address book until
I open it and save it. What am I doing wrong.

The Exchange server is vs. 5.5. Running Outlook 2000 (and Outlook 2002).
The code creates a message with type IPM.Contact in the Contacts
folders. Can an entry be added directly into the Outlook Address book
address list?

Regards,

Chris

Chris Tanner
AECL
Chalk River, Ontario
K0J 1P0

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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]

OWA 5.5 against E2K BE servers.

[Ken Cornetet]

For various reasons we are still depending on two OWA 5.5 servers
accessing mailboxes on E2K BE servers. This has worked well up until a
few days ago. We think the problems correspond to going native E2K mode.

Any users created recently (again ,we *think* since we went native)
cannot access their mailboxes via either OWA 5.5. They get the message
"The Microsoft Exchange Server is down or the HTTP Service has been
disabled by an administrator. Please try your request again later."
Outlook works fine, as does OWA 2000. Users defined before going native
have no problems using either OWA 5.5 server.

A KB search returns a few hits on the error message, most relating to
LDAP search permissions.

Any ideas? I've traced the error down in the source code. The section of
code that is displaying the error has the comment "Load DSA
Configuration Data". 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

OWA 5.5 against E2K BE servers.

[Ken Cornetet]

For various reasons we are still depending on two OWA 5.5 servers
accessing mailboxes on E2K BE servers. This has worked well up until a
few days ago. We think the problems correspond to going native E2K mode.

Any users created recently (again ,we *think* since we went native)
cannot access their mailboxes via either OWA 5.5. They get the message
"The Microsoft Exchange Server is down or the HTTP Service has been
disabled by an administrator. Please try your request again later."
Outlook works fine, as does OWA 2000. Users defined before going native
have no problems using either OWA 5.5 server.

A KB search returns a few hits on the error message, most relating to
LDAP search permissions.

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: how to prevent logon during move mailbox

[Ken Cornetet]

Another thing you may want to consider when moving 5.5 mailboxes to
2000: stop the pertinent ADC connection agreement. There is a race
condition possible which can cause AD to forget that the mailbox was
moved. You can start it again after the move.

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 12:27 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: how to prevent logon during move mailbox


Don't trivialize the question.  I have seen where users' Outlook
sessions are active on an Exchange 5.5 server, and their mailbox is
moved to Exchange 2000, the Exchange 5.5 mailbox stays or is recreated.
This, of course, causes problems because Exchange 5.5 mail continues to
get routed to the old mailbox.  It's pretty important to block logons
when using a move mailbox migration strategy from 5.5 to 2000.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Edgington, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 6:44 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: how to prevent logon during move mailbox


When the mailbox is being moved, the user won't be able to logon anyway.
Matter of fact it will be a few minutes after the move is complete
before they regain access to the mailbox... if you're not liking this..
then Ed has the better option... don't let them into the subnet that the
exchange boxes are on.



-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 8:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: how to prevent logon during move mailbox


Better to disconnect them from the network on which the clients reside.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 4:12 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: how to prevent logon during move mailbox


Move them at 3 AM.

On 2/6/03 17:48, "Microsoft Exchange List Server"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



MSX2000+SP3
1 forest 

Do we have any Qarticle explaining how to prevent logon during an
exchage 
2000 move mailbox process? 

I have tried the article below it does work for msx2000 

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;218920 






_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Gonna love this...

[Ken Cornetet]

Well, for better worse, PSTs are the preferred solution for certain
situations here. We have instructions to show the users how to put them
on their home drives, and their care and feeding. So far, it has worked
well.

We did resolve our original problem. Most all of our users' home drives
reside on an EMC Celerra NAS. The Celerra has a nifty feature where you
can use the UNC \\servername\HOME to refer to your home directory (ala
Samba) so that you don't have to create thousands of shares. Our docs
tell the users to create their PST as Y:\user.pst (literally "user", not
their userid). Y: is mapped to \\nas\HOME. Running outlook 2002 fat
handles this setup just fine. However, something in the mix of terminal
server, ol2002, and Celerra seems to think that all the
\\nas\HOME\user.pst files are the same file.

We simply changed the users' PST files to be Y:\{userid}.pst. Works like
a charm.

We are seeing a few other minor quirks when using Office XP applications
against files on the NAS. Is anyone else seeing incompatibility issues
when using non-Microsoft SMB servers? We saw no problems whatsoever with
Office 97. 

-Original Message-
From: Busby, Jacob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 6:36 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Gonna love this...


We got Citrix here and actively discourage our users from creating
.pst's. (They tend to save them to temporary areas then wonder why all
their mail goes missing when they log off) You could consider using the
disablepst reg hack, but that might give your desktop support team
hassle whenever they want to juggle data around for any reason.

> Are you using Exchange 2000 or 5.5?  Just curious because
> since we went
> to 2000 we have had some strange problems with PST's on mapped drives.
> 
> -Matt
>> 
>> We are testing Outlook 2002 in Windows 2000/Citrix terminal server 
>> and ran into issues with PST files on the users' mapped home drive. 
>> We opened a PSS call and were told that "Microsoft does not support 
>> PST files on mapped drives". The support person then quoted a q 
>> article which basically says that performance of a PST file on a 
>> network drive will not match a local drive (duh...).
>> 
>> Sheesh...

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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 Server 5.5 and Win 2000 network

[Ken Cornetet]

What?

You most certainly can run Exchange 5.5 on NT4 (or 2000 server for that
matter) in an AD domain. You don't even need the DS client to do so.

If I'm understanding the original question correctly, you want to
upgrade your PDC to win2k creating (or joining) an AD forest. You want
to leave your exchange 5.5 server, which is presumably a member of the
upgraded domain,  running NT4. Correct? This will work just fine. 

You could upgrade the exchange 5.5 server to windows 2000, but I
wouldn't bother. Build a new win2k server, install E2K, joining your
existing exchange org. Migrate your mailboxes to the new server, retire
the old.

There's lots of little details you have to pay attention to along the
way, but MS has tons of documents available to step you through the
whole process.

-Original Message-
From: Bingel, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 1:28 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange Server 5.5 and Win 2000 network


You can't run it with the AD client on NT4?

-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 1:27 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange Server 5.5 and Win 2000 network

Its not only possible, its required.

-Original Message-
From: Keith Boettcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 1:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange Server 5.5 and Win 2000 network


We are changing our Windows NT network to Win2K.  We have a procedure
for upgrading NT PDCs  to Win2K Active Directory with DNS, etc.  How
will our Exchange 5.5 server on an NT server box work with this?  Should
we upgrade that box from NT server to Win2K server and still run
Exchange 5.5 on it?

We want to upgrade to Win2K before we upgrade to Exchange 2000.  Is this
possible?  What are the dangers?

Keith Boettcher

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Gonna love this...

[Ken Cornetet]

2000

-Original Message-
From: Bailey, Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 4:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Gonna love this...


Are you using Exchange 2000 or 5.5?  Just curious because since we went
to 2000 we have had some strange problems with PST's on mapped drives.

-Matt

Matthew Bailey
LAN Engineer
CSK Auto, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Office: (602) 631-7486
Fax: (602) 294-7486

Chaos reigns within. 
Reflect, repent, and reboot. 
Order shall return.




-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 2:52 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Gonna love this...

We are testing Outlook 2002 in Windows 2000/Citrix terminal server and
ran into issues with PST files on the users' mapped home drive. We
opened a PSS call and were told that "Microsoft does not support PST
files on mapped drives". The support person then quoted a q article
which basically says that performance of a PST file on a network drive
will not match a local drive (duh...).

Sheesh...

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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]

Gonna love this...

[Ken Cornetet]

We are testing Outlook 2002 in Windows 2000/Citrix terminal server and
ran into issues with PST files on the users' mapped home drive. We
opened a PSS call and were told that "Microsoft does not support PST
files on mapped drives". The support person then quoted a q article
which basically says that performance of a PST file on a network drive
will not match a local drive (duh...).

Sheesh...

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2000 tuning

[Ken Cornetet]

Thanks! Ours writes are averaging just below .05

Looks like it's time to learn all about EMC.

-Original Message-
From: Clemens, Rick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 1:00 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 tuning


I would recommend looking at the following counters (straight out of the
MEC
2002)

PhysicalDisk(drive:)\Avg. Disk sec/Read PhysicalDisk(drive:)\Avg. Disk
sec/Write

These two counters should be below 0.020 and if Write caching in array
controller the sec/write should be less than 0.002

Anything between 0.020 - 0.050 seconds is a likely bottleneck Anything
greater than 0.050 is definitely a bottleneck.

We are currently utilizing IBM's FAStT Storage Solution as our SAN and
are seeing Avg. Disk sec/Write's periodically as high as 10 seconds.
Needless to say we have IBM out here trying to resolve it.  I wish we
had purchased the EMC...

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 11:03 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 tuning


That's where I would look.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 6:41 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 tuning


For logs I'm using an EMC LUN (is that still the right term for
fibre-channel?) consisting of 5 mirrored pairs of 9GB disk slices.

For the stores, I'm using two of the above LUNs in a Win2k stripe set.
Each exchange server has one storage group consisting of two databases -
both on the stripe set.

The EMC admin tells me the remainder of the disks that I'm on hold low
traffic stuff such as unix operating systems and low volume Oracle
databases.

Looking at the PhysicalDisk perfmon counters for the store disks, I'm
confused. % disk time is averaging 257%. I assume that means the disk is
not keeping up with requests, and some requests are sitting in queue?
But % Idle shows an average of 65%. How can the disk be 257% busy and
65% Idle? Current queue length is averaging 3 (which sort of correlates
to the 257% busy). Bytes per second is a paltry 380K.

I've asked for tools to "look inside" the EMC to get stats on it's
traffic, but we don't own anything yet (The EMC admin is in the process
of buying something).

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 6:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 tuning


How are disks configured?

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 11:13 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2000 tuning


Can anyone recommend any Exchange 2000 or Windows 2000 tuning parameters
to consider tweaking? Or perhaps performance monitor counters to watch
that would indicate problems?

We recently completed migrating about 3500 users from Exchange 5.5
running on 4 quad 450MHz, 1GB machines to Exchange 2000 running on two
dual 1.4GHz 4GB machines (win2k advance, /3GB switch). The old MSX 5.5
servers each had dual wide SCSI connections to an old EMC Symmetrix. The
new servers have dual FC connections to a Symetrix. The old servers
connected to the network via two teamed 100mbit ethernet lines. The new
servers have one gigabit network link.

Clients are running Outlook 98 and Outlook 2002.

My mailbox was the first moved to one of the new servers. After it was
moved, my outlook 2002 was lightening fast - faster than on the old
servers (which wasn't bad at all).

The problem is that now all the mailboxes are migrated, most everyone
sees worse performance than on the old system. The odd part is that some
people see no almost difference, while some see a significant drop in
performance (as measured by the time it takes to display items in a
folder). Viewing one's calendar seems particularly hard hit.

I can't see any rhyme or reason to why some clients are impacted worse
than others. It's not the client machine speed - I'm running an old
Thinkpad 770Z
- 366MHz PII and my performance is OK. It's not network - others around
me (same network path to servers) see problems.

CPU utilization on the servers very seldom goes above 20%, Pages/Sec
typically sits at 0, but does bump to 10 or so.  We were seeing lots of
log stalls, but we raised the number of log buffers which did eliminate
the log stalls, but didn't seem to improve performance any.

We have 3 GCs (1.4GHz, 1GB) in the site where the E2K servers and most
all of the users live.

By all rights the two new machines SHOULD give e

RE: Front end Server

[Ken Cornetet]

We considered doing this, but in the end decided to go with a dedicated
proxy appliance box.

Reasons?

1. Less holes in the firewalls. SSL from the internet, and HTTP to our
existing FE server. 
2. The cost of the proxy appliance was comparable to server hardware +
E2K enterprise.
3. Dedicated appliance box was deemed to be more secure than IIS/Win2K.
4. The proxy box could be used to "publish" some of our other internal
apps to the Internet.
5. Proxy box can do the SSL encryption/decryption. Could theoretically
do load balancing too.

If you want to stick with Microsoft apps, you can put ISA server on a
stand-alone win2k server (no domain) in the DMZ. According to our MS
technical contact, this is actually the recommended way of putting OWA
on the Internet. 

-Original Message-
From: Pillai, Raj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 12:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Front end Server



Dear All,

I am in the process of building a Front End server(Exchange 2000
enterprise sp3, to be placed in the DMZ, just for OWA. An IBM
workstation class machine with Pentium 4, 1.80GHz CPU with a 36GB HDD is
being used for this purpose. I am not expecting more that 20-25
concurrent connections to this box at any given time. Will this box be
able to handle this load or do I need a "Server class" machine?

Exchange 2000 enterprise sp3, windows 2000 server sp

As always I appreciate all your input.

Raj


**
This e-mail message, including any attachments, contains information
that is 
confidential, may be protected by the attorney/client or other
applicable privileges, and may constitute non-public information.  This
message is 
intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).  If you are
not the intended recipient of this message, do not read it; please
immediately notify the sender that you have received this message in
error and delete this message.Unauthorized use, disclosure,
dissemination, distribution, reproduction 
of this message or the information contained in this message or the
taking of any action in reliance on it is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. 
Thank you for your cooperation.

**

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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 2000 tuning

[Ken Cornetet]

For logs I'm using an EMC LUN (is that still the right term for
fibre-channel?) consisting of 5 mirrored pairs of 9GB disk slices.

For the stores, I'm using two of the above LUNs in a Win2k stripe set.
Each exchange server has one storage group consisting of two databases -
both on the stripe set.

The EMC admin tells me the remainder of the disks that I'm on hold low
traffic stuff such as unix operating systems and low volume Oracle
databases.

Looking at the PhysicalDisk perfmon counters for the store disks, I'm
confused. % disk time is averaging 257%. I assume that means the disk is
not keeping up with requests, and some requests are sitting in queue?
But % Idle shows an average of 65%. How can the disk be 257% busy and
65% Idle? Current queue length is averaging 3 (which sort of correlates
to the 257% busy). Bytes per second is a paltry 380K.

I've asked for tools to "look inside" the EMC to get stats on it's
traffic, but we don't own anything yet (The EMC admin is in the process
of buying something).

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 6:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 tuning


How are disks configured?

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 11:13 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2000 tuning


Can anyone recommend any Exchange 2000 or Windows 2000 tuning parameters
to consider tweaking? Or perhaps performance monitor counters to watch
that would indicate problems?

We recently completed migrating about 3500 users from Exchange 5.5
running on 4 quad 450MHz, 1GB machines to Exchange 2000 running on two
dual 1.4GHz 4GB machines (win2k advance, /3GB switch). The old MSX 5.5
servers each had dual wide SCSI connections to an old EMC Symmetrix. The
new servers have dual FC connections to a Symetrix. The old servers
connected to the network via two teamed 100mbit ethernet lines. The new
servers have one gigabit network link.

Clients are running Outlook 98 and Outlook 2002.

My mailbox was the first moved to one of the new servers. After it was
moved, my outlook 2002 was lightening fast - faster than on the old
servers (which wasn't bad at all).

The problem is that now all the mailboxes are migrated, most everyone
sees worse performance than on the old system. The odd part is that some
people see no almost difference, while some see a significant drop in
performance (as measured by the time it takes to display items in a
folder). Viewing one's calendar seems particularly hard hit.

I can't see any rhyme or reason to why some clients are impacted worse
than others. It's not the client machine speed - I'm running an old
Thinkpad 770Z - 366MHz PII and my performance is OK. It's not network -
others around me (same network path to servers) see problems.

CPU utilization on the servers very seldom goes above 20%, Pages/Sec
typically sits at 0, but does bump to 10 or so.  We were seeing lots of
log stalls, but we raised the number of log buffers which did eliminate
the log stalls, but didn't seem to improve performance any.

We have 3 GCs (1.4GHz, 1GB) in the site where the E2K servers and most
all of the users live.

By all rights the two new machines SHOULD give even better total
performance than the old four. The links to the EMC disks are faster
(fibre channel), the EMC is newer (10K RPM disks, larger cache), the
store is spread over more spindles, and gigabit ethernet. I know the new
servers CAN provide more overall performance because backup time dropped
by more than half over the old servers. 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: USER BATCH PROGRAM FOR NT

[Ken Cornetet]

ADDUSERS.EXE from the NT4 resource kit.

-Original Message-
From: Reed, Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 2:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: USER BATCH PROGRAM FOR NT


   Is there a utility that will allow you to do a batch add of users for
NT? I thought that there was one.  

   Alex

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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 2000 OWA via the internet

[Ken Cornetet]

We are considering using a Network Appliance NetCache in a DMZ as a
proxy to allow Internet access to our internal Exchange 2000 OWA
servers. Is anyone else using this setup?

How does it work out? Should we spring the extra $$$ for SSL on the
NetCache, or just let the otherwise bored FE servers handle the SSL?
Typically we have 5 - 10 simultaneous Internet OWA users.

Comments? 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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 2000 tuning

[Ken Cornetet]

Can anyone recommend any Exchange 2000 or Windows 2000 tuning parameters
to consider tweaking? Or perhaps performance monitor counters to watch
that would indicate problems?

We recently completed migrating about 3500 users from Exchange 5.5
running on 4 quad 450MHz, 1GB machines to Exchange 2000 running on two
dual 1.4GHz 4GB machines (win2k advance, /3GB switch). The old MSX 5.5
servers each had dual wide SCSI connections to an old EMC Symmetrix. The
new servers have dual FC connections to a Symetrix. The old servers
connected to the network via two teamed 100mbit ethernet lines. The new
servers have one gigabit network link.

Clients are running Outlook 98 and Outlook 2002.

My mailbox was the first moved to one of the new servers. After it was
moved, my outlook 2002 was lightening fast - faster than on the old
servers (which wasn't bad at all).

The problem is that now all the mailboxes are migrated, most everyone
sees worse performance than on the old system. The odd part is that some
people see no almost difference, while some see a significant drop in
performance (as measured by the time it takes to display items in a
folder). Viewing one's calendar seems particularly hard hit.

I can't see any rhyme or reason to why some clients are impacted worse
than others. It's not the client machine speed - I'm running an old
Thinkpad 770Z - 366MHz PII and my performance is OK. It's not network -
others around me (same network path to servers) see problems.

CPU utilization on the servers very seldom goes above 20%, Pages/Sec
typically sits at 0, but does bump to 10 or so.  We were seeing lots of
log stalls, but we raised the number of log buffers which did eliminate
the log stalls, but didn't seem to improve performance any.

We have 3 GCs (1.4GHz, 1GB) in the site where the E2K servers and most
all of the users live.

By all rights the two new machines SHOULD give even better total
performance than the old four. The links to the EMC disks are faster
(fibre channel), the EMC is newer (10K RPM disks, larger cache), the
store is spread over more spindles, and gigabit ethernet. I know the new
servers CAN provide more overall performance because backup time dropped
by more than half over the old servers. 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Reinstalling OWA

[Ken Cornetet]

1. Install IE 6 SP1 on your intranet server (You'll need it for a later
step).

2. Run windows update and install all of the critical updates.

3. Plop the Exchange CD in the Intranet server. Select OWA. When OWA
asks, give it the name of one of your MSX 5.5 servers 

4. Install Exchange 5.5 SP4.

5. Install Q313576 and Q321006 (Needs at least IE 5.01SP2 - that's why
you installed IE6 SP1 in step 1).


-Original Message-
From: Eve Jimah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 4:16 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Reinstalling OWA


My platform is windows NT4 with Exchange 5.5. I need
to change the location of my OWA from the current NT4
box to a windows 2000 server box. When OWA was
installed on my network, setup was run on the exchange
server and the path for installation of OWA was our
intranet server which had IIS. So to connect to OWA
you have to go through the intranet server, which is
what we wanted. 

Now my problem is the intranet server has crashed and
we have replaced it with a windows 2000 box, how can I
re install OWA on the new windows 2000 server. Do I
run setup again on my exchange server selecting the
new win2k server as my OWA, or do I have to remove the
previous instance of owa on the exchange server before
a new installation. We will be migrating to win2k in
the near future hence the win2k server.

Please help.

Thanks 

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.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: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN

[Ken Cornetet]

I'll pass along a bit of wisdom that my great-grandpappy gave to me:

How do you tell if a salesman is lying?
Watch his lips. If they are moving, he's lying!


-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 1:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN


They'll tell you anything to sell you a box.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Depp, Dennis M.
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 10:26 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN


That was the word I got at MEC.

-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 1:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN


That's not what they told us, but this was at least 6 months ago. Things
may have changed since then.

-Original Message-
From: Depp, Dennis M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 1:15 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN


According to the EMC engineers, they can do a hot split.  No need to
stop and restart the services.

Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 11:07 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN


And do I really want to buy all those extra expensive EMC disks? And do
I really want to have to stop the Exchange services (albeit briefly) to
do the split?

-Original Message-
From: Depp, Dennis M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 8:16 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN


While I do trust the EMC engineers, particularly after talking with
several of them at MEC, do I really want to go with a backup solution
that Microsoft does not fully support? 

Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Mark Harford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 8:12 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN


So no-one is using EMCs hot-split snapshot backup solution for Exchange
2000?

> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Tuip [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 30
> January 2003 09:48 Posted To: Exchange 55 list server
> Conversation: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN
> Subject: Re: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN
> 
> 
> Reasonable. But usually a SAN means you also start looking at an
> enterprise backup solution.
> 
> **  Please prefix your subject header with BETA for posts dealing with

> Exchange 2003 **
> --
> Martin Tuip
> MVP Exchange
> Exchange 2000 List owner
> www.exchange-mail.org
> www.sharepointserver.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ryan Finnesey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:31 AM
> Subject: RE: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN
> 
> 
> How is CommValt now a days ?
> 
> 
> Ryan,
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Depp, Dennis M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 6:25 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN
> 
> We are planning to use Legato in this situation to backup our Exchange

> database.
> 
> Dennis Depp
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Walbert, Bryan (Bryan) % [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 9:11 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN
> 
> 
> What backup/restore solutions are recommended for a large Exchange
> 2000 cluster running on an EMC SAN.  We have been running netbackup 
> for our Exchange 5.5 environment, and have been quite dissatisfied 
> with its performance.
> 
> 
> Bryan Walbert
> agere systems
> Wintel Architecture, Engineering and Standards
> MS Exchange/Windows Architect
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Phone: 610 712 5874
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN

[Ken Cornetet]

That's not what they told us, but this was at least 6 months ago. Things
may have changed since then.

-Original Message-
From: Depp, Dennis M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 1:15 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN


According to the EMC engineers, they can do a hot split.  No need to
stop and restart the services.

Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 11:07 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN


And do I really want to buy all those extra expensive EMC disks? And do
I really want to have to stop the Exchange services (albeit briefly) to
do the split?

-Original Message-
From: Depp, Dennis M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 8:16 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN


While I do trust the EMC engineers, particularly after talking with
several of them at MEC, do I really want to go with a backup solution
that Microsoft does not fully support? 

Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Mark Harford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 8:12 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN


So no-one is using EMCs hot-split snapshot backup solution for Exchange
2000?

> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Tuip [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 30 
> January 2003 09:48 Posted To: Exchange 55 list server
> Conversation: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN
> Subject: Re: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN
> 
> 
> Reasonable. But usually a SAN means you also start looking at an 
> enterprise backup solution.
> 
> **  Please prefix your subject header with BETA for posts dealing with

> Exchange 2003 **
> --
> Martin Tuip
> MVP Exchange
> Exchange 2000 List owner
> www.exchange-mail.org
> www.sharepointserver.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ryan Finnesey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:31 AM
> Subject: RE: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN
> 
> 
> How is CommValt now a days ?
> 
> 
> Ryan,
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Depp, Dennis M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 6:25 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN
> 
> We are planning to use Legato in this situation to backup our Exchange

> database.
> 
> Dennis Depp
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Walbert, Bryan (Bryan) % [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 9:11 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN
> 
> 
> What backup/restore solutions are recommended for a large Exchange 
> 2000 cluster running on an EMC SAN.  We have been running netbackup 
> for our Exchange 5.5 environment, and have been quite dissatisfied 
> with its performance.
> 
> 
> Bryan Walbert
> agere systems
> Wintel Architecture, Engineering and Standards
> MS Exchange/Windows Architect
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Phone: 610 712 5874
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.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]
> 


BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain 
persona

RE: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN

[Ken Cornetet]

And do I really want to buy all those extra expensive EMC disks? And do
I really want to have to stop the Exchange services (albeit briefly) to
do the split?

-Original Message-
From: Depp, Dennis M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 8:16 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN


While I do trust the EMC engineers, particularly after talking with
several of them at MEC, do I really want to go with a backup solution
that Microsoft does not fully support? 

Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Mark Harford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 8:12 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN


So no-one is using EMCs hot-split snapshot backup solution for Exchange
2000?

> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Tuip [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 30 
> January 2003 09:48 Posted To: Exchange 55 list server
> Conversation: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN
> Subject: Re: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN
> 
> 
> Reasonable. But usually a SAN means you also start looking at an 
> enterprise backup solution.
> 
> **  Please prefix your subject header with BETA for posts dealing with

> Exchange 2003 **
> --
> Martin Tuip
> MVP Exchange
> Exchange 2000 List owner
> www.exchange-mail.org
> www.sharepointserver.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ryan Finnesey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:31 AM
> Subject: RE: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN
> 
> 
> How is CommValt now a days ?
> 
> 
> Ryan,
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Depp, Dennis M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 6:25 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN
> 
> We are planning to use Legato in this situation to backup our Exchange

> database.
> 
> Dennis Depp
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Walbert, Bryan (Bryan) % [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 9:11 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Backup solution for Exchange 2000 on an EMC SAN
> 
> 
> What backup/restore solutions are recommended for a large Exchange 
> 2000 cluster running on an EMC SAN.  We have been running netbackup 
> for our Exchange 5.5 environment, and have been quite dissatisfied 
> with its performance.
> 
> 
> Bryan Walbert
> agere systems
> Wintel Architecture, Engineering and Standards
> MS Exchange/Windows Architect
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Phone: 610 712 5874
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.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]
> 


BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain 
personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically 
stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system, do 
not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in 
reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the 
BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will 
signify your consent to this.


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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 Li

RE: Server capacity

[Ken Cornetet]

I think you will be OK, but if at all possible, add more RAM. I have run
win2k/E2k in 256MB and just logging in and running system administrator
thrashes the disk continuously.

The textbook says you should use two of your disks in a mirror for the
Exchange logs, but with 50 users, I don't think it will make much
difference. On the other hand, you should realize the disaster recovery
implications of having the logs and store on the same disk. 

Also, having your swap on RAID5 is going to make swapping even more
painful. More reason to add more memory.

Maybe you should consider using two of your disks in RAID1 for your swap
and E2K logs. Use the remainder in RAID5 for everything else. 

You might also want to consider running Exchange 5.5 on NT4 -
particularly if you can't add more RAM.

Another thing to consider (as others have mentioned) is Linux & POP3.
Use Yahoo for your "public folders" and calendars.



-Original Message-
From: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 6:15 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Server capacity


I know it is well beyond end-of-life, but given our financial
constraints, is it useable? I don't have the resources to do a proper
stress test to see how response times would be under a ~30-50 user load.
If it takes 45 seconds for a user to open their inbox, then I will have
a good reason to say that we need something with more muscle. I haven't
set up an Exchange server before, so I don't know what kind of load it
puts on systems.

Erick

- Original Message -
From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 3:00 PM
Subject: RE: Server capacity


> Even if it was, that machine is well beyond end-of-life.
>
> Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
> Tech Consultant
> hp Services
> Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin 
> Blackstone
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:05 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Server capacity
>
>
> I don't think E2k or even W2K is recommended on a Ppro system.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:05 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Server capacity
>
>
> I am hoping that I can get some feedback on a server configuration. I 
> have a Compaq Proliant 6500, dual PPro 200, 256 MB ram, and 7 x 4.3GB 
> drives in RAID 5 with a hot spare. I want to set this system up as an 
> Exchange 2000 server for about 30 local users, and another 20 via OWA.

> The email load will be fairly heavy, and there will be a lot of use of

> shared folders and calendars.
>
> I'm concerned about taking the time to set the server up, get Exchange

> up and running, only to find that it's running too slowly for the 
> users to be productive. I know more is better, but this is a 
> non-profit with a very limited budget, so I want to make sure we have 
> what we need. Is this server going to be a serious bottleneck?
>
> Thanks,
> Erick
>
>
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Using script to get header info

[Ken Cornetet]

Hmmm, I've been wrestling with CDO as of late, and your question piqued
my interest. See
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;q194870 for
code.

-Original Message-
From: Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 4:03 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Using script to get header info


Hi folks,

I created a public folder and asked several of our users to move their
spam into it. From there, I can open the messages, view the headers,
pluck the IP addresses of the offending mail servers, and add them to
our internal dns blacklist.

Works like a charm, but it's very labor-intensive.

I wrote some vbscript code that examines all the messages in the folder,
and returns things like Sender, Subject, etc., all of which are
basically useless to me in this case, but the practice was good. There
doesn't seem to be any property that will return the header info, no? I
don't have a good reference book handy, but searching through the online
MSDN library was helpful.

Now it looks like maybe ADO/CDOEX might be the way to go. Does anyone
have any sample code that might give me some pointers? This doesn't have
to be fandy or polished. If I can retrieve the headers, I can parse
through them and find the right "received by" line, and pull the address
from that line and output it to the screen. I'd greatly appreciate any
pointers at all, be it a web page, KB article, book, etc.

Thanks,
Mike

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Need recommendation for 3rd party Exchange 2000 POP3 Connectors

[Ken Cornetet]

Oh goodness, I hope you have asbestos undies on! POP3 connectors are
generally considered the spawn of Satan in these circles. Don't let the
flames get you down, there are limited cases where a POP3 connector can
work well (such as mine: one-to-one mailboxes, no fixed IP address).

I don't think there is any legal or supported way to get SBS's POP3
connector, and even if there was, you wouldn't want it. It apparently
doesn't undergo any QA testing at Microsoft (Latest SBS SP fixes a bug
in the POP3 connecter that causes random people to start completely
LOSING their POP3 mail if you have more than 10 POP3 connections
defined. Of course, one of those "random" people would have to be the
president of the company that I put SBS in... )

That said, there are various POP3 connectors out there, most widely used
of which is probably fetchmail. Do a search on fetchmail and win32, and
you will find various win32 ports - I even remember seeing one that ran
as a service.

If you aren't afraid to write some code, Perl has modules for the POP3
and SMTP parts of the problem. If SP3 doesn't straighten out my client's
POP3, I'm going to write a custom perl program to do the job.



-Original Message-
From: Clishe, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 5:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Need recommendation for 3rd party Exchange 2000 POP3 Connectors


Does anyone have any experience with any of the 3rd party Exchange 2000
POP3 connectors? Or better yet, is there a way to install the SBS POP3
Connector on a non-SBS box?


J a s o n  C l i s h e
Senior Network Engineer
Analysts International, Sequoia Services Group

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Direct: (248) 371-3542 
Mobile: (248) 891-8780


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: messages frozen in an SMTP queue

[Ken Cornetet]

I've re-read the original post and I think we are all missing the
problem. The problem isn't that the Linux box won't accept the one bad
message. It's that the Exchange server won't give up on the one bad
message and move on to the rest of the queue. That would seem to
indicate a problem on the Exchange side.

A network sniff may be required to see if the Exchange box is not trying
subsequent connections, or if the Linux box is bungling connections.

-Original Message-
From: B. van Ouwerkerk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 5:57 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: messages frozen in an SMTP queue


Look a bit closer at the headers of the message you can't send. Create a

message with BLAT, keep it as clean as possible and use the same TO and 
FROM. See if that message ships off without any problem..

Even without anti-spam features he could have made some settings which
are 
giving you a hard time. He will probably not see it as misconfigured,
and 
he's probably right :-)

And again: ASK the Linux guy if he would be so kind to check his logfile

for the messages you couldn't ship off to his server. Try to get him on
the 
phone and do it while he looks at the logs.. Logs on Linux servers are 
usually very informative and will probably reveal the real cause of the 
problems you're experiencing.

If you ask the Linux guy for help it will probably result in a quick and

real solution.


--B.

At 00:02 14-01-2003 -0500, you wrote:
>There is nothing bad in the SMTP log. The Linus server says "ready for 
>data". That's it. No more records of this session.
>
>There is nothing bad in the Event Log either (cranked to max logging)
>
>My first guess (based on previous experience) was that the Linux server

>had some kind of antispam feature. I told the Linux guy to give a 
>little slack for connections from Exchange server, to which he replied 
>that they did not use any antispam programs on Linux.
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "B. van Ouwerkerk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 5:35 PM
>Subject: Re: messages frozen in an SMTP queue
>
>
> > The Linux box might have some protection in place to prevent spam. 
> > Blacklist, Sendmail configuration ( like sender domain does not 
> > resolve), others.
> >
> > Be nice to the Linux guy and ask if that might be the case.
> >
> > I don't believe in many problems while communication between 
> > Exchange and Linux. I'm maintaining several Sendmail (Linux) and 
> > Exchange (various flavors of NT) and never found any problem during 
> > the communication..
> >
> > It would be interesting to see the error in your SMTP logs.. perhaps

> > it explains more.. The Linux guy could possibly provide you with the

> > relevant part of their messages log or syslog. Which they use 
> > depends on distro and how they configured it.
> >
> > Don't get yourself into a "your OS sucks" discussion.. it will not 
> > get you any closer to a solution.. Even if you're sure the problem 
> > is caused by
>the
> > configuration of the Linux box, it might still be an Exchange 
> > problem if mail gets stuck in a queue.
> >
> >
> >
> > --B.
> >
> >
> > At 16:45 13-01-2003 -0500, you wrote:
> > >Hi all. I have Exchange 2000, SP3.
> > >
> > >Due to company's needs some of our mail is being directly forwarded

> > >to another mail server which is running on Linux and someone else 
> > >is taking care of that mail server. That persona also thinks that 
> > >there could be no problems on the Linux side.
> > >
> > >Here is the problem.
> > >
> > >Some of the mail that our Exchange server receives and forwards to 
> > >the Linux server is spam.
> > >
> > >Some of this spam gets stuck (frozen) in the Linux server -bound 
> > >SMTP queue. The queue goes into retry state with comment 
> > >"connection was dropped by the remote host". Once the "bad" message

> > >gets frozen, all the subsequent messages get stuck - Linux server 
> > >keeps dropping connection every time the Exchange server retries 
> > >the bad message, and the good messages can't flow "around" the bad 
> > >one.
> > >
> > >The Linux guy just thinks that this is Exchange problem, since they

> > >receive mail from everywhere else without problems.
> > >
> > >The Exchange SMTP logs don't show anything specific - MAIL FROM is 
> > >OK, RCPT TO is OK, Exchange server says DATA and Linux server says 
> > >READY FOR DATA. That's when there is no more communication until 
> > >the next retry. The Linux guy says "oh, your Exchange server does 
> > >not understand READY
>FOR
> > >DATA and times out". To which I answer, "how about 99% of messages 
> > >that the Echange server delivers to your Linux server without 
> > >problems?"
> > >
> > >So I fished out the file of the bad message from the queue and 
> > >tried to BLAT it directly to the Linux server. BLAT failed. So to 
> > >me it looks like the problem is with the data in the message, and

RE: OWA 0115

[Ken Cornetet]

On your OWA server:

Install IE 6SP1 (or IE5.5SP2) (the following patches require it!)
Install Q313576 Install Q321006

Your ASP0115 errors will be gone.

-Original Message-
From: Sandhya Pai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 9:31 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OWA 0115


We have Exchange 5.5 sp 4 on NT server sp 6a

It's been running great for one year.  Last night the OWA went down.  It
gives OWA 0115 error and logs event id 5 on application log.  I looked
at the q184841 reviewed 10/22/2002 and it says the problem (heap
corruption) is fixed in latest service pack. Should I reapply the last
service pack(4?)? Restarting www only fixed the problem temporarily.  I
just stopped and restarted IIS admin service.  Hopefully the problem is
gone.

Thanks for any help.

Sandhya

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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 0115

[Ken Cornetet]

On your OWA server:

Install IE 6SP1 (or IE5.5SP2) (the following patches require it!)
Install Q313576
Install Q321006

Your ASP0115 errors will be gone.

-Original Message-
From: Sandhya Pai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 9:31 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OWA 0115


We have Exchange 5.5 sp 4 on NT server sp 6a

It's been running great for one year.  Last night the OWA went down.  It
gives OWA 0115 error and logs event id 5 on application log.  I looked
at the q184841 reviewed 10/22/2002 and it says the problem (heap
corruption) is fixed in latest service pack. Should I reapply the last
service pack(4?)? Restarting www only fixed the problem temporarily.  I
just stopped and restarted IIS admin service.  Hopefully the problem is
gone.

Thanks for any help.

Sandhya

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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 2000 Recovery

[Ken Cornetet]

I recently discovered one gotcha when using EMC & PowerPath on Windows
2000. If one fibre-channel link dies, PowerPath re-configures itself to
use only the one remaining good link. When the first link comes back up,
it can take several minutes for PowerPath to see it and again
reconfigure.

So, if your second link goes down before PowerPath realizes the first is
back up, you are suddenly without disk. We learned this the hard way by
doing a rolling firmware upgrade to our san switches...

After talking to several EMC folks, I was eventually told that this was
"by design".

-Original Message-
From: Depp, Dennis M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:37 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery


Roger and Jeff,

I am also interested in the problems you encountered.  We are in the
process of implementing a Dell/EMC solution.  I currently have a test
bed up and running and have seen no problems yet.

Thanks

Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:30 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery


Really?

Care to share the experiences? I'm actively specing out Dell/EMC gear
for a project and anything I know ahead of time will help. Offlist is
fine, too.

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA


> -Original Message-
> From: Edgington, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:01 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
> 
> 
> Actually... most of the problems were a result of the SAN and it's
> failures.  Of the 5 sites that had this type of SAN, 4 had problems.
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 8:00 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
> 
> 
> I'd call that more of a good reason not to use clusters.
> 
> --
> Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
> Sr. Systems Administrator
> Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
> Atlanta, GA
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:04 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery
> > 
> > 
> > Good advertisement to not use Dell.
> > 
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Edgington, Jeff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 9:41 PM
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
> > 
> > 
> > I'm the poor schmuck that became VERY practiced at doing
> recoveries in
> > this domain.  We were initially told to move from three E5.5 servers

> > to 1 clustered Dell SAN.  My first comment was 'what if this
> unbreakable
> > setup breaks in a way that the diagnostics on the SAN
> doesn't detect a
> > problem... I'll end up with 8700 people without e-mail'...
> I was told
> > "that can't happen"... well, it did... I did at least 6 recoveries 
> > in a 12 month span with 2 being all 8700 mailboxes and the others
> > being 4300
> > each time.  This FINALLY convinced the people with money that this
> > wasn't a smart strategy and they finally allowed me to move 
> > back to the
> > 'many small servers' approach that I prefer... yes, I take a 
> > hit on SIS
> > (8700 mailboxes on currently 6 production servers... I'm backing up
> > 200GB nightly.. full backups)... since our move back to 
> off-the-shelf
> > (but MS HCL hardware) servers, we've had no outages.  Those
> in our org
> > that are still using the Dell/Cluster approach continue to
> experience
> > constant problems.
> > 
> > John is a little off with his description... this is our current
> > approach and it seems to work very well in my test restores.
> > (this was
> > developed during my nightmare, er experience with the 
> > recoveries of last
> > year).
> > 
> > We keep an offline restore domain that contains our recovery 
> > servers... these same servers are the target for my backups of the 
> > production servers... this way in the case of a restore I am running
> the restore
> > from the local drive on the recovery server as opposed to over the
> > network or from tape (we backup to files on hard drive).
> We also dump
> > VIP mailboxes to PST files nightly (perl script that uses exmerge...

> > 93
> > mailboxes)
> > 
> > Restore steps with our config... this is based on a couple MS
> > whitepapers... I can dig them up if anyone is interested (don't 
> > remember the titles)
> > 
> > 1.  production db or sg goes down.
> > 
> > 2.  determine if the db/sg can be remounted without data loss... if 
> > not, continue.
> > 
> > 3.  copy production TLOGS to a safe location on the recovery server 
> > for that production server.
> > 
> > 4.  reset the