RE: PST Files
Also, if a pst file is Read-Only Outlook will not open it. Outlook requires read and write access to open a pst file. Thanks, Peter Dahl. From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 6:38 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: PST Files PST files rare not supported on a network device. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: McCready, Robert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 1:27 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: PST Files We are in the process of trying to do away with PST files. Is there any way to all PST's on the network to be ready only, so nobody could add to them? I'm assuming not, unless you move them to a folder where they only have read permissions. This communication is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, (i) please do not read or disclose to others, (ii) please notify the sender by reply mail, and (iii) please delete this communication from your system. Failure to follow this process may be unlawful. Thank you for your cooperation. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: memory upgrade on EX2K3
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Thomas Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm upgrading our exchange 2003 memory from 2 gig to 4 gig this weekend. Here's my notes from when we upgraded to a new server, which had 4 GB RAM. At the time, we were running Windows 2000 Server Standard and Exchange 2000 Enterprise. As I recall, things weren't any different for Exchange 2003. Server 2003 supports the /4GB switch even for Standard, so that may make a difference. Summary --- New server has: - 4 GB of RAM - Windows 2000 Server Standard - Exchange 2000 Enterprise - Active Directory Domain Controller and Global Catalog - Several other applications Should we use the /3GB switch in the BOOT.INI file on server? Short answer: No Quick Background i386 = 32-bit 32-bit = 4 GB By default, Windows on i386 splits the virtual address space into 2 GB for userland and 2 GB for the kernel. The /3GB switch changes this to give 3 GB to userland and 1 GB to the kernel. This means processes can have a larger virtual address space, at the cost of cutting kernel virtual address space in half. Reducing the kernel address space is not without penalties. Quick Explanation - 1. On a system doing many different things, there is little to no benefit in depriving the kernel of address space it could use for caching in RAM. 1a. Exchange generally only benefits from the extra address space on a dedicated Exchange box. Less kernel memory is needed since the only thing the box is doing is running Exchange, not managing many different things. 2. The /3GB switch is not supported on Win 2000 Srvr Std. It is supported on Win 2003 Srvr and Win 2000 Srvr Enterprise, but we don't have those. 2a. It isn't worth upgrading to Win 2000 Srvr Ent because of Point 1, above. Notes - 4GT = 4 gigabyte tuning. The /3GB switch turns this on. Virtual address space (the memory a process can address) is not the same as the physical address space (the amount of RAM the machine can address). With /3GB enabled, a program still has to request the larger memory space, or it will still be limited to 2 GB. This is a backwards compatabiltiy hack to let programs which assume a 2 GB userland keep working. This has nothing to do with PAE (physical address extension). PAE changes the 32-bit physical address space to a 36-bit physical address space. It lets the machine address more RAM. The amount of RAM the machine can address has nothing to do with the address space of a running process. This has nothing to do with page files (swap files), which are sometimes called Virtual Memory. That kind of virtual memory has nothing to do with virtual addres space (which is also sometimes called virtual memory). Detailed Analysis - REF1 states that If you're working with Exchange Server and another application that doesn't know about large memory spaces, that other program will not be able to use any of the additional memory provided by /3GB. In particular, Exchange plus an AD DC means one should not use /3GB switch. REF2 enforces this, in particular pointing out things like antivirus software and database servers, which also tend to be memory hungry. REF2 also provides some very useful looking pointers to info on how to tune Windows and Exchange for more balanced memory operation. REF3 further enforces the kernel/userland tradeoffs, noting that It is possible to run out of kernel memory well before running out of user memory, or vice versa. MSKB 315407 provides a registry hack that tweaks the OS memory manager in a way that helps reduced memory fragmentation with large RAMs. MSKB 266768 tells how to monitor the Exchange IS to make sure memory allocations are within safe boundries (both with and without /3GB), and how to limit the Store Database cache size to make sure it stays within safe boundries. MSKB 328882 provides similar tips. It also explains out why memory limit tuning is needed in our case: Exchange calculates certain allocation sizes based on physical RAM, not address space. In REF5, in the comments, Larry Osterman states, in regards to Exchange and memory fragmentation, it starts showing up with several (3-5) thousand users. That gives us an idea of the scale we're talking about. MSKB 325044 and 317411 contain tons of detailed information on investigation of memory related issues, but little in the way of preventive advice. MSKB 313707 detail memory-related problems that can occur with Exchange, but do not apply to us for one reason or another. Most commonly, because we cannot use the /3GB switch on Win 2000 Srvr Std. However, these do serve to highlight that the /3GB switch is not a free lunch. MSKB 291988 notes that /3GB on Win 2000 Srvr Std doesn't really work, even if it looks like it is working. MSKB 266096 implies that the /3GB swith is required, period. Other sources, including MSKB articles, and REF4.1, contradict this. MSKB 266096 also states that it
RE: memory upgrade on EX2K3
Wow. Great post!!! -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 9:32 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: memory upgrade on EX2K3 On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Thomas Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm upgrading our exchange 2003 memory from 2 gig to 4 gig this weekend. Here's my notes from when we upgraded to a new server, which had 4 GB RAM. At the time, we were running Windows 2000 Server Standard and Exchange 2000 Enterprise. As I recall, things weren't any different for Exchange 2003. Server 2003 supports the /4GB switch even for Standard, so that may make a difference. Summary --- New server has: - 4 GB of RAM - Windows 2000 Server Standard - Exchange 2000 Enterprise - Active Directory Domain Controller and Global Catalog - Several other applications Should we use the /3GB switch in the BOOT.INI file on server? Short answer: No Quick Background i386 = 32-bit 32-bit = 4 GB By default, Windows on i386 splits the virtual address space into 2 GB for userland and 2 GB for the kernel. The /3GB switch changes this to give 3 GB to userland and 1 GB to the kernel. This means processes can have a larger virtual address space, at the cost of cutting kernel virtual address space in half. Reducing the kernel address space is not without penalties. Quick Explanation - 1. On a system doing many different things, there is little to no benefit in depriving the kernel of address space it could use for caching in RAM. 1a. Exchange generally only benefits from the extra address space on a dedicated Exchange box. Less kernel memory is needed since the only thing the box is doing is running Exchange, not managing many different things. 2. The /3GB switch is not supported on Win 2000 Srvr Std. It is supported on Win 2003 Srvr and Win 2000 Srvr Enterprise, but we don't have those. 2a. It isn't worth upgrading to Win 2000 Srvr Ent because of Point 1, above. Notes - 4GT = 4 gigabyte tuning. The /3GB switch turns this on. Virtual address space (the memory a process can address) is not the same as the physical address space (the amount of RAM the machine can address). With /3GB enabled, a program still has to request the larger memory space, or it will still be limited to 2 GB. This is a backwards compatabiltiy hack to let programs which assume a 2 GB userland keep working. This has nothing to do with PAE (physical address extension). PAE changes the 32-bit physical address space to a 36-bit physical address space. It lets the machine address more RAM. The amount of RAM the machine can address has nothing to do with the address space of a running process. This has nothing to do with page files (swap files), which are sometimes called Virtual Memory. That kind of virtual memory has nothing to do with virtual addres space (which is also sometimes called virtual memory). Detailed Analysis - REF1 states that If you're working with Exchange Server and another application that doesn't know about large memory spaces, that other program will not be able to use any of the additional memory provided by /3GB. In particular, Exchange plus an AD DC means one should not use /3GB switch. REF2 enforces this, in particular pointing out things like antivirus software and database servers, which also tend to be memory hungry. REF2 also provides some very useful looking pointers to info on how to tune Windows and Exchange for more balanced memory operation. REF3 further enforces the kernel/userland tradeoffs, noting that It is possible to run out of kernel memory well before running out of user memory, or vice versa. MSKB 315407 provides a registry hack that tweaks the OS memory manager in a way that helps reduced memory fragmentation with large RAMs. MSKB 266768 tells how to monitor the Exchange IS to make sure memory allocations are within safe boundries (both with and without /3GB), and how to limit the Store Database cache size to make sure it stays within safe boundries. MSKB 328882 provides similar tips. It also explains out why memory limit tuning is needed in our case: Exchange calculates certain allocation sizes based on physical RAM, not address space. In REF5, in the comments, Larry Osterman states, in regards to Exchange and memory fragmentation, it starts showing up with several (3-5) thousand users. That gives us an idea of the scale we're talking about. MSKB 325044 and 317411 contain tons of detailed information on investigation of memory related issues, but little in the way of preventive advice. MSKB 313707 detail memory-related problems that can occur with Exchange, but do not apply to us for one reason or another. Most commonly, because we cannot use the /3GB switch on Win 2000 Srvr Std. However, these do serve to highlight that the /3GB switch is not a free lunch. MSKB 291988 notes that /3GB on Win 2000 Srvr Std doesn't really work, even if it
4.4.7
One person trying to send messages into our org is getting these errors coming back... Original-recipient: rfc822;[EMAIL PROTECTED] Final-recipient: rfc822;[EMAIL PROTECTED] Action: delayed Status: 4.4.7 (unable to deliver this message after 1 day) Doesn't look like it's getting into our server at all, since that message comes back from her ISP. We get messages from other users at the ISP. She can send messages to other people fine in other companies. I've whitelisted her address in the spam filter, I've checked all my settings, it all looks ok. Any suggestions? Thanks Steve ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: 4.4.7
Not true. That message is supposed to come from her own mail server - not yours. Its a Delivery Status Notification (DSN) that indicates that her mail server was unable to complete an SMTP transaction with yours. So, this message comes from her server - not yours. Based on on the original e-mail and this bounce, are/is you/she positive that she is sending to the correct recipient? If yes, then SMTP tests should be performed between her server and yours. A basic telnet test (against ports 25) should suffice in determining if basic SMTP connectivity is possible. If that's good, then another possibility to check is *your* spam filter logs to see if you are greylisting (delaying) connections from her server. There are mail domains that are known to handle greylisting well because of rotating egress mail servers (with different IPs), etc. On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Steve Ens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One person trying to send messages into our org is getting these errors coming back... Original-recipient: rfc822;[EMAIL PROTECTED] Final-recipient: rfc822;[EMAIL PROTECTED] Action: delayed Status: 4.4.7 (unable to deliver this message after 1 day) Doesn't look like it's getting into our server at all, since that message comes back from her ISP. We get messages from other users at the ISP. She can send messages to other people fine in other companies. I've whitelisted her address in the spam filter, I've checked all my settings, it all looks ok. Any suggestions? Thanks Steve -- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: 4.4.7
She can send to my gmail account no problem...I'll get her to check though... On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you sure she's using the correct sending smtp server in her outlook/e-mail/whatever application? I used to see that all the time (when I was in the business) with clients that were using the wrong smtp server… Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com *From:* Steve Ens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:34 AM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* 4.4.7 One person trying to send messages into our org is getting these errors coming back... Original-recipient: rfc822;[EMAIL PROTECTED] Final-recipient: rfc822;[EMAIL PROTECTED] Action: delayed Status: 4.4.7 (unable to deliver this message after 1 day) Doesn't look like it's getting into our server at all, since that message comes back from her ISP. We get messages from other users at the ISP. She can send messages to other people fine in other companies. I've whitelisted her address in the spam filter, I've checked all my settings, it all looks ok. Any suggestions? Thanks Steve ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: 4.4.7
Yah the message does come from her mail server, not ours. It's odd since we get messages from other people from Shaw. According to the error codes, she has entered the correct email addresses. I could call Shaw to check it out and see what their support people say. On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Micheal Espinola Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not true. That message is supposed to come from her own mail server - not yours. Its a Delivery Status Notification (DSN) that indicates that her mail server was unable to complete an SMTP transaction with yours. So, this message comes from her server - not yours. Based on on the original e-mail and this bounce, are/is you/she positive that she is sending to the correct recipient? If yes, then SMTP tests should be performed between her server and yours. A basic telnet test (against ports 25) should suffice in determining if basic SMTP connectivity is possible. If that's good, then another possibility to check is *your* spam filter logs to see if you are greylisting (delaying) connections from her server. There are mail domains that are known to handle greylisting well because of rotating egress mail servers (with different IPs), etc. On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Steve Ens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One person trying to send messages into our org is getting these errors coming back... Original-recipient: rfc822;[EMAIL PROTECTED] Final-recipient: rfc822;[EMAIL PROTECTED] Action: delayed Status: 4.4.7 (unable to deliver this message after 1 day) Doesn't look like it's getting into our server at all, since that message comes back from her ISP. We get messages from other users at the ISP. She can send messages to other people fine in other companies. I've whitelisted her address in the spam filter, I've checked all my settings, it all looks ok. Any suggestions? Thanks Steve -- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: memory upgrade on EX2K3
Very informative post, but I didn't catch the part where the OP stated his Exchange server was also a DC. - Sean On 5/27/08, David Mazzaccaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow. Great post!!! -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 9:32 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: memory upgrade on EX2K3 On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Thomas Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm upgrading our exchange 2003 memory from 2 gig to 4 gig this weekend. Here's my notes from when we upgraded to a new server, which had 4 GB RAM. At the time, we were running Windows 2000 Server Standard and Exchange 2000 Enterprise. As I recall, things weren't any different for Exchange 2003. Server 2003 supports the /4GB switch even for Standard, so that may make a difference. Summary --- New server has: - 4 GB of RAM - Windows 2000 Server Standard - Exchange 2000 Enterprise - Active Directory Domain Controller and Global Catalog - Several other applications Should we use the /3GB switch in the BOOT.INI file on server? Short answer: No Quick Background i386 = 32-bit 32-bit = 4 GB By default, Windows on i386 splits the virtual address space into 2 GB for userland and 2 GB for the kernel. The /3GB switch changes this to give 3 GB to userland and 1 GB to the kernel. This means processes can have a larger virtual address space, at the cost of cutting kernel virtual address space in half. Reducing the kernel address space is not without penalties. Quick Explanation - 1. On a system doing many different things, there is little to no benefit in depriving the kernel of address space it could use for caching in RAM. 1a. Exchange generally only benefits from the extra address space on a dedicated Exchange box. Less kernel memory is needed since the only thing the box is doing is running Exchange, not managing many different things. 2. The /3GB switch is not supported on Win 2000 Srvr Std. It is supported on Win 2003 Srvr and Win 2000 Srvr Enterprise, but we don't have those. 2a. It isn't worth upgrading to Win 2000 Srvr Ent because of Point 1, above. Notes - 4GT = 4 gigabyte tuning. The /3GB switch turns this on. Virtual address space (the memory a process can address) is not the same as the physical address space (the amount of RAM the machine can address). With /3GB enabled, a program still has to request the larger memory space, or it will still be limited to 2 GB. This is a backwards compatabiltiy hack to let programs which assume a 2 GB userland keep working. This has nothing to do with PAE (physical address extension). PAE changes the 32-bit physical address space to a 36-bit physical address space. It lets the machine address more RAM. The amount of RAM the machine can address has nothing to do with the address space of a running process. This has nothing to do with page files (swap files), which are sometimes called Virtual Memory. That kind of virtual memory has nothing to do with virtual addres space (which is also sometimes called virtual memory). Detailed Analysis - REF1 states that If you're working with Exchange Server and another application that doesn't know about large memory spaces, that other program will not be able to use any of the additional memory provided by /3GB. In particular, Exchange plus an AD DC means one should not use /3GB switch. REF2 enforces this, in particular pointing out things like antivirus software and database servers, which also tend to be memory hungry. REF2 also provides some very useful looking pointers to info on how to tune Windows and Exchange for more balanced memory operation. REF3 further enforces the kernel/userland tradeoffs, noting that It is possible to run out of kernel memory well before running out of user memory, or vice versa. MSKB 315407 provides a registry hack that tweaks the OS memory manager in a way that helps reduced memory fragmentation with large RAMs. MSKB 266768 tells how to monitor the Exchange IS to make sure memory allocations are within safe boundries (both with and without /3GB), and how to limit the Store Database cache size to make sure it stays within safe boundries. MSKB 328882 provides similar tips. It also explains out why memory limit tuning is needed in our case: Exchange calculates certain allocation sizes based on physical RAM, not address space. In REF5, in the comments, Larry Osterman states, in regards to Exchange and memory fragmentation, it starts showing up with several (3-5) thousand users. That gives us an idea of the scale we're talking about. MSKB 325044 and 317411 contain tons of detailed information on investigation of memory related issues, but little in the way of preventive advice. MSKB 313707 detail memory-related problems that can occur with Exchange, but do not apply
RE: 4.4.7
Are you sure she's using the correct sending smtp server in her outlook/e-mail/whatever application? I used to see that all the time (when I was in the business) with clients that were using the wrong smtp server. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Steve Ens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:34 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: 4.4.7 One person trying to send messages into our org is getting these errors coming back... Original-recipient: rfc822;[EMAIL PROTECTED] Final-recipient: rfc822;[EMAIL PROTECTED] Action: delayed Status: 4.4.7 (unable to deliver this message after 1 day) Doesn't look like it's getting into our server at all, since that message comes back from her ISP. We get messages from other users at the ISP. She can send messages to other people fine in other companies. I've whitelisted her address in the spam filter, I've checked all my settings, it all looks ok. Any suggestions? Thanks Steve ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: memory upgrade on EX2K3
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Sean Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very informative post, but I didn't catch the part where the OP stated his Exchange server was also a DC. I didn't mean to imply that our situation was identical to his. Those were notes, not advice. :) -- Ben ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: Hosting Multiple domains in Exchange 2003
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Jonathan Gruber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A user has sent an email to a bellsouth account using domainb which is also hosted on this server and the mail is timing out. What's the exact error message? Have you checked Event Viewer for more info? Have you tried using Exchange SMTP diagnostic logging? Have you tried doing the SMTP dialog manually with the TELNET command? When a test is sent from domain to the bellsouth.net address it goes through, so I assume that the reverse dns lookup bellsouth is doing is failing. That doesn't sound like a reverse lookup issue. Reverse lookup is done against the IP address of your mail server. If the problem was with that, it would affect all mail sent from your mail server, regardless of the sender domain name. It might be that the forward lookup of your domainb.com is slow or faulty. Many SMTP servers check the name submitted in MAIL FROM for validity, so a DNS problem there can cause trouble. If you let us know the actual domainb.com, we could check it. -- Ben ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: memory upgrade on EX2K3
So, I performed the upgrade and there was no issues, Sean, thanks for the information on the regedit. I also ran the Exchange BPA and there where no issues, (minors no majors) with the upgrade. Also, this server is a member not a DC, this is a single exchange with no front or backend config. Thanks everyone for your informative information. Cheers, Thomas From: Sean Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: memory upgrade on EX2K3 Very informative post, but I didn't catch the part where the OP stated his Exchange server was also a DC. - Sean On 5/27/08, David Mazzaccaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow. Great post!!! -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 9:32 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: memory upgrade on EX2K3 On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Thomas Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm upgrading our exchange 2003 memory from 2 gig to 4 gig this weekend. Here's my notes from when we upgraded to a new server, which had 4 GB RAM. At the time, we were running Windows 2000 Server Standard and Exchange 2000 Enterprise. As I recall, things weren't any different for Exchange 2003. Server 2003 supports the /4GB switch even for Standard, so that may make a difference. Summary --- New server has: - 4 GB of RAM - Windows 2000 Server Standard - Exchange 2000 Enterprise - Active Directory Domain Controller and Global Catalog - Several other applications Should we use the /3GB switch in the BOOT.INI file on server? Short answer: No Quick Background i386 = 32-bit 32-bit = 4 GB By default, Windows on i386 splits the virtual address space into 2 GB for userland and 2 GB for the kernel. The /3GB switch changes this to give 3 GB to userland and 1 GB to the kernel. This means processes can have a larger virtual address space, at the cost of cutting kernel virtual address space in half. Reducing the kernel address space is not without penalties. Quick Explanation - 1. On a system doing many different things, there is little to no benefit in depriving the kernel of address space it could use for caching in RAM. 1a. Exchange generally only benefits from the extra address space on a dedicated Exchange box. Less kernel memory is needed since the only thing the box is doing is running Exchange, not managing many different things. 2. The /3GB switch is not supported on Win 2000 Srvr Std. It is supported on Win 2003 Srvr and Win 2000 Srvr Enterprise, but we don't have those. 2a. It isn't worth upgrading to Win 2000 Srvr Ent because of Point 1, above. Notes - 4GT = 4 gigabyte tuning. The /3GB switch turns this on. Virtual address space (the memory a process can address) is not the same as the physical address space (the amount of RAM the machine can address). With /3GB enabled, a program still has to request the larger memory space, or it will still be limited to 2 GB. This is a backwards compatabiltiy hack to let programs which assume a 2 GB userland keep working. This has nothing to do with PAE (physical address extension). PAE changes the 32-bit physical address space to a 36-bit physical address space. It lets the machine address more RAM. The amount of RAM the machine can address has nothing to do with the address space of a running process. This has nothing to do with page files (swap files), which are sometimes called Virtual Memory. That kind of virtual memory has nothing to do with virtual addres space (which is also sometimes called virtual memory). Detailed Analysis - REF1 states that If you're working with Exchange Server and another application that doesn't know about large memory spaces, that other program will not be able to use any of the additional memory provided by /3GB. In particular, Exchange plus an AD DC means one should not use /3GB switch. REF2 enforces this, in particular pointing out things like antivirus software and database servers, which also tend to be memory hungry. REF2 also provides some very useful looking pointers to info on how to tune Windows and Exchange for more balanced memory operation. REF3 further enforces the kernel/userland tradeoffs, noting that It is possible to run out of kernel memory well before running out of user memory, or vice versa. MSKB 315407 provides a registry hack that tweaks the OS memory manager in a way that helps reduced memory fragmentation with large RAMs. MSKB 266768 tells how to monitor the Exchange IS to make sure memory allocations are within safe boundries (both with and without /3GB), and how to limit the Store Database cache size to make sure it stays within safe boundries. MSKB 328882 provides similar tips. It also explains out why memory limit tuning is needed in our case: Exchange calculates certain allocation sizes based on physical RAM, not address space. In REF5, in
Really odd behavior
I've had this happen a few times in the last couple of months, but this time it happened to a manager, so I have to look into it. Exchange 2K3, latest SPs and patches Outlook 2K3, cached mode This manager sent an e-mail back in August of 2005, which was answered way back then, etc. The original message is sitting in her archive folder. This morning, this same message was sent again, without the user sending it, just magically going out. The only way she even knew this is because the person on the other end responded to it. I don't know of anything within Exchange that would do this, but I'm hoping someone out there does. The message sent today is in her Sent Items, so something happened, but the user had nothing to do with it. Any ideas? Or are there simply gremlins in my Exchange system, randomly resending messages from years ago? Joe Heaton AISA Employment Training Panel 1100 J Street, 4th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 327-5276 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Really odd behavior
It's not Exchange doing it. Exchange knows nothing about the Sent Items folder. That points to an Outlook or other client-side issue. I know that Outlook has the capability for Delayed Delivery. I guess I'd be taking a look in that direction. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:03 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Really odd behavior I've had this happen a few times in the last couple of months, but this time it happened to a manager, so I have to look into it. Exchange 2K3, latest SPs and patches Outlook 2K3, cached mode This manager sent an e-mail back in August of 2005, which was answered way back then, etc. The original message is sitting in her archive folder. This morning, this same message was sent again, without the user sending it, just magically going out. The only way she even knew this is because the person on the other end responded to it. I don't know of anything within Exchange that would do this, but I'm hoping someone out there does. The message sent today is in her Sent Items, so something happened, but the user had nothing to do with it. Any ideas? Or are there simply gremlins in my Exchange system, randomly resending messages from years ago? Joe Heaton AISA Employment Training Panel 1100 J Street, 4th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 327-5276 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Really odd behavior
Maybe the SMTP VDir TempTables? http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/50422/have-you-checked-your-smtp-mailbox-temporary-tables-lately.html Jason Tierney, MCSE Vice President, Consulting Services Corporate Network Services Count on Us direct: 240-425-4441 From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Really odd behavior It's not Exchange doing it. Exchange knows nothing about the Sent Items folder. That points to an Outlook or other client-side issue. I know that Outlook has the capability for Delayed Delivery. I guess I'd be taking a look in that direction... Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:03 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Really odd behavior I've had this happen a few times in the last couple of months, but this time it happened to a manager, so I have to look into it. Exchange 2K3, latest SPs and patches Outlook 2K3, cached mode This manager sent an e-mail back in August of 2005, which was answered way back then, etc. The original message is sitting in her archive folder. This morning, this same message was sent again, without the user sending it, just magically going out. The only way she even knew this is because the person on the other end responded to it. I don't know of anything within Exchange that would do this, but I'm hoping someone out there does. The message sent today is in her Sent Items, so something happened, but the user had nothing to do with it. Any ideas? Or are there simply gremlins in my Exchange system, randomly resending messages from years ago? Joe Heaton AISA Employment Training Panel 1100 J Street, 4th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 327-5276 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Really odd behavior
Did the manager log into a different system today? I have seen stuck messages in a OST file (cache mode) and when the user logins into a box that have not been on in a while the message goes out. From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:03 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Really odd behavior I've had this happen a few times in the last couple of months, but this time it happened to a manager, so I have to look into it. Exchange 2K3, latest SPs and patches Outlook 2K3, cached mode This manager sent an e-mail back in August of 2005, which was answered way back then, etc. The original message is sitting in her archive folder. This morning, this same message was sent again, without the user sending it, just magically going out. The only way she even knew this is because the person on the other end responded to it. I don't know of anything within Exchange that would do this, but I'm hoping someone out there does. The message sent today is in her Sent Items, so something happened, but the user had nothing to do with it. Any ideas? Or are there simply gremlins in my Exchange system, randomly resending messages from years ago? Joe Heaton AISA Employment Training Panel 1100 J Street, 4th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 327-5276 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Really odd behavior
Nice detective work - but if I understand the original scenario correctly, 1. the original was successfully delivered a few years ago and replied to 2. I don't see how the message hung in the SMTP service would get to the clients Sent Items folder again. From: Jason Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:45 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Really odd behavior Maybe the SMTP VDir TempTables? http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/50422/have-you-checked-your-sm tp-mailbox-temporary-tables-lately.html Jason Tierney, MCSE Vice President, Consulting Services Corporate Network Services Count on Us direct: 240-425-4441 From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Really odd behavior It's not Exchange doing it. Exchange knows nothing about the Sent Items folder. That points to an Outlook or other client-side issue. I know that Outlook has the capability for Delayed Delivery. I guess I'd be taking a look in that direction... Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:03 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Really odd behavior I've had this happen a few times in the last couple of months, but this time it happened to a manager, so I have to look into it. Exchange 2K3, latest SPs and patches Outlook 2K3, cached mode This manager sent an e-mail back in August of 2005, which was answered way back then, etc. The original message is sitting in her archive folder. This morning, this same message was sent again, without the user sending it, just magically going out. The only way she even knew this is because the person on the other end responded to it. I don't know of anything within Exchange that would do this, but I'm hoping someone out there does. The message sent today is in her Sent Items, so something happened, but the user had nothing to do with it. Any ideas? Or are there simply gremlins in my Exchange system, randomly resending messages from years ago? Joe Heaton AISA Employment Training Panel 1100 J Street, 4th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 327-5276 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: Really odd behavior
Sounds like the all too common problem between the keyboard and the chair. It happens all the time when people accidentally hit send on a something or fat finger something and all of a sudden there is a system problem and the helpdesk is alerted, you get where I'm getting at here. There is no solution to people. _ John Bowles - Original Message From: Joe Heaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:02:30 PM Subject: Really odd behavior I've had this happen a few times in the last couple of months, but this time it happened to a manager, so I have to look into it. Exchange 2K3, latest SPs and patches Outlook 2K3, cached mode This manager sent an e-mail back in August of 2005, which was answered way back then, etc. The original message is sitting in her archive folder. This morning, this same message was sent again, without the user sending it, just magically going out. The only way she even knew this is because the person on the other end responded to it. I don't know of anything within Exchange that would do this, but I'm hoping someone out there does. The message sent today is in her Sent Items, so something happened, but the user had nothing to do with it. Any ideas? Or are there simply gremlins in my Exchange system, randomly resending messages from years ago? Joe Heaton AISA Employment Training Panel 1100 J Street, 4th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 327-5276 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Calling BES Admins
I've been demo-ing a new BB device and BES server. I miss a few features that the Goodlink Messaging Server offered, and that I have grown to love... 1st. Message Flags? Can't seem to do this. Is this device specific or is it a limitation of the server/service itself. Does BB plan on deploying this someday? 2nd. Reply/Forward message icons next to the message. Kinda like what outlook does, it has a purple arrow if you replied to the message, and a blue one if you have forwarded it. When I am on my device, I like to be able to know what I have/haven't responded too. My Sprint account manager tells me that he has this on his BB, but doesn't remember how he did it. Any other tips for a 1st time BES admin? (must know tricks and settings?) Thanks! Sam Cayze Information Technology Administrator ROLLOUTS ONSITE * ON DEMAND 952.279.6218...Direct Dial 612.386.3946...Mobile 877.471.6495...eFax www.Rollouts.com blocked::http://www.Rollouts.com www.e-Technicians.net http://www.e-technicians.net/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachment(s) are intended only for the designated recipient(s). Rollouts Incorporated prohibits use, distribution or transmittal by or to an unintended recipient without Rollouts' express written approval. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this email and notify Rollouts. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Calling BES Admins
1) Nope, something I've desired for many years now because it's how I manage my inbox. The way I've worked around this is set delete only on device. Mark something and unread and delete it. Then I know to work on it back in my Outlook client. Though I've changed this now and I leave any actionable item in the inbox and move/file all other messages to a specific sub folder. A company by link-two makes an add-on for this: I haven't personally used it, but understand it will accomplish what you want, however unsure if it will sync back to Outlook. http://www.link-two.com/bb.html 2) Nope, you only get read/unread and sent state. If you have any kind of compliance requirements, I would play with the encryption, feature(camera, Bluetooth, etc) enablement/disablement policies. What are you looking to do with them? I assume with Good you were using Treo/WinMo devices which is why you were looking for the features below. From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 1:09 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Calling BES Admins I've been demo-ing a new BB device and BES server. I miss a few features that the Goodlink Messaging Server offered, and that I have grown to love... 1st. Message Flags? Can't seem to do this. Is this device specific or is it a limitation of the server/service itself. Does BB plan on deploying this someday? 2nd. Reply/Forward message icons next to the message. Kinda like what outlook does, it has a purple arrow if you replied to the message, and a blue one if you have forwarded it. When I am on my device, I like to be able to know what I have/haven't responded too. My Sprint account manager tells me that he has this on his BB, but doesn't remember how he did it. Any other tips for a 1st time BES admin? (must know tricks and settings?) Thanks! Sam Cayze Information Technology Administrator ROLLOUTS ONSITE * ON DEMAND 952.279.6218...Direct Dial 612.386.3946...Mobile 877.471.6495...eFax www.Rollouts.com blocked::http://www.Rollouts.com www.e-Technicians.net http://www.e-technicians.net/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachment(s) are intended only for the designated recipient(s). Rollouts Incorporated prohibits use, distribution or transmittal by or to an unintended recipient without Rollouts' express written approval. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this email and notify Rollouts. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Calling BES Admins
Thanks, good to know. I will look into that system.Yep, we are in the Treo\Goodlink world. We are not switching, just evaluating what else is out there. And I have a BB Curve on a 30 demo. (Drool). I am finding that Good is insanely cheaper than BES, and even cheaper than just the BB Data Plans alone for that matter :( From: Barsodi.John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:33 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Calling BES Admins 1) Nope, something I've desired for many years now because it's how I manage my inbox. The way I've worked around this is set delete only on device. Mark something and unread and delete it. Then I know to work on it back in my Outlook client. Though I've changed this now and I leave any actionable item in the inbox and move/file all other messages to a specific sub folder. A company by link-two makes an add-on for this: I haven't personally used it, but understand it will accomplish what you want, however unsure if it will sync back to Outlook. http://www.link-two.com/bb.html 2) Nope, you only get read/unread and sent state. If you have any kind of compliance requirements, I would play with the encryption, feature(camera, Bluetooth, etc) enablement/disablement policies. What are you looking to do with them? I assume with Good you were using Treo/WinMo devices which is why you were looking for the features below. From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 1:09 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Calling BES Admins I've been demo-ing a new BB device and BES server. I miss a few features that the Goodlink Messaging Server offered, and that I have grown to love... 1st. Message Flags? Can't seem to do this. Is this device specific or is it a limitation of the server/service itself. Does BB plan on deploying this someday? 2nd. Reply/Forward message icons next to the message. Kinda like what outlook does, it has a purple arrow if you replied to the message, and a blue one if you have forwarded it. When I am on my device, I like to be able to know what I have/haven't responded too. My Sprint account manager tells me that he has this on his BB, but doesn't remember how he did it. Any other tips for a 1st time BES admin? (must know tricks and settings?) Thanks! Sam Cayze Information Technology Administrator ROLLOUTS ONSITE * ON DEMAND 952.279.6218...Direct Dial 612.386.3946...Mobile 877.471.6495...eFax www.Rollouts.com blocked::http://www.Rollouts.com www.e-Technicians.net http://www.e-technicians.net/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachment(s) are intended only for the designated recipient(s). Rollouts Incorporated prohibits use, distribution or transmittal by or to an unintended recipient without Rollouts' express written approval. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this email and notify Rollouts. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Calling BES Admins
ActiveSync is even cheaper ;) From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 1:44 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Calling BES Admins Thanks, good to know. I will look into that system.Yep, we are in the Treo\Goodlink world. We are not switching, just evaluating what else is out there. And I have a BB Curve on a 30 demo. (Drool). I am finding that Good is insanely cheaper than BES, and even cheaper than just the BB Data Plans alone for that matter :( From: Barsodi.John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:33 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Calling BES Admins 1) Nope, something I've desired for many years now because it's how I manage my inbox. The way I've worked around this is set delete only on device. Mark something and unread and delete it. Then I know to work on it back in my Outlook client. Though I've changed this now and I leave any actionable item in the inbox and move/file all other messages to a specific sub folder. A company by link-two makes an add-on for this: I haven't personally used it, but understand it will accomplish what you want, however unsure if it will sync back to Outlook. http://www.link-two.com/bb.html 2) Nope, you only get read/unread and sent state. If you have any kind of compliance requirements, I would play with the encryption, feature(camera, Bluetooth, etc) enablement/disablement policies. What are you looking to do with them? I assume with Good you were using Treo/WinMo devices which is why you were looking for the features below. From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 1:09 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Calling BES Admins I've been demo-ing a new BB device and BES server. I miss a few features that the Goodlink Messaging Server offered, and that I have grown to love... 1st. Message Flags? Can't seem to do this. Is this device specific or is it a limitation of the server/service itself. Does BB plan on deploying this someday? 2nd. Reply/Forward message icons next to the message. Kinda like what outlook does, it has a purple arrow if you replied to the message, and a blue one if you have forwarded it. When I am on my device, I like to be able to know what I have/haven't responded too. My Sprint account manager tells me that he has this on his BB, but doesn't remember how he did it. Any other tips for a 1st time BES admin? (must know tricks and settings?) Thanks! Sam Cayze Information Technology Administrator ROLLOUTS ONSITE * ON DEMAND 952.279.6218...Direct Dial 612.386.3946...Mobile 877.471.6495...eFax www.Rollouts.com blocked::http://www.Rollouts.com www.e-Technicians.net http://www.e-technicians.net/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachment(s) are intended only for the designated recipient(s). Rollouts Incorporated prohibits use, distribution or transmittal by or to an unintended recipient without Rollouts' express written approval. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this email and notify Rollouts. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Calling BES Admins
Very true, we have our eyes on it. We will wait until WinMob 6 and Exchange 2007 and some nice devices arrive that utilize it. WinMob 5 and Exch 2003 just don't have the feature-set we need and that we have grown accustomed to. Goodlink Messaging has spoiled us ;) From: Matt Lathrum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:50 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Calling BES Admins ActiveSync is even cheaper ;) From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 1:44 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Calling BES Admins Thanks, good to know. I will look into that system.Yep, we are in the Treo\Goodlink world. We are not switching, just evaluating what else is out there. And I have a BB Curve on a 30 demo. (Drool). I am finding that Good is insanely cheaper than BES, and even cheaper than just the BB Data Plans alone for that matter :( From: Barsodi.John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:33 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Calling BES Admins 1) Nope, something I've desired for many years now because it's how I manage my inbox. The way I've worked around this is set delete only on device. Mark something and unread and delete it. Then I know to work on it back in my Outlook client. Though I've changed this now and I leave any actionable item in the inbox and move/file all other messages to a specific sub folder. A company by link-two makes an add-on for this: I haven't personally used it, but understand it will accomplish what you want, however unsure if it will sync back to Outlook. http://www.link-two.com/bb.html 2) Nope, you only get read/unread and sent state. If you have any kind of compliance requirements, I would play with the encryption, feature(camera, Bluetooth, etc) enablement/disablement policies. What are you looking to do with them? I assume with Good you were using Treo/WinMo devices which is why you were looking for the features below. From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 1:09 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Calling BES Admins I've been demo-ing a new BB device and BES server. I miss a few features that the Goodlink Messaging Server offered, and that I have grown to love... 1st. Message Flags? Can't seem to do this. Is this device specific or is it a limitation of the server/service itself. Does BB plan on deploying this someday? 2nd. Reply/Forward message icons next to the message. Kinda like what outlook does, it has a purple arrow if you replied to the message, and a blue one if you have forwarded it. When I am on my device, I like to be able to know what I have/haven't responded too. My Sprint account manager tells me that he has this on his BB, but doesn't remember how he did it. Any other tips for a 1st time BES admin? (must know tricks and settings?) Thanks! Sam Cayze Information Technology Administrator ROLLOUTS ONSITE * ON DEMAND 952.279.6218...Direct Dial 612.386.3946...Mobile 877.471.6495...eFax www.Rollouts.com blocked::http://www.Rollouts.com www.e-Technicians.net http://www.e-technicians.net/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachment(s) are intended only for the designated recipient(s). Rollouts Incorporated prohibits use, distribution or transmittal by or to an unintended recipient without Rollouts' express written approval. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this email and notify Rollouts. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Hosting Multiple domains in Exchange 2003
DomainB is shirevalleydesign.com DNS entries are correct as far as I can tell. ESM error message is An SMTP protocol error occurred. I get a delay message and then a failure message Could not deliver the message in the time limit specified. I can't telnet into mail.bellsouth.net from that server, but I also tried to telnet from a different location and couldn't there either. Jonathan Gruber Network Administrator J.B. Long Inc. 610-944-8840 x.213 484-637-1978 direct -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:18 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Hosting Multiple domains in Exchange 2003 On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Jonathan Gruber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A user has sent an email to a bellsouth account using domainb which is also hosted on this server and the mail is timing out. What's the exact error message? Have you checked Event Viewer for more info? Have you tried using Exchange SMTP diagnostic logging? Have you tried doing the SMTP dialog manually with the TELNET command? When a test is sent from domain to the bellsouth.net address it goes through, so I assume that the reverse dns lookup bellsouth is doing is failing. That doesn't sound like a reverse lookup issue. Reverse lookup is done against the IP address of your mail server. If the problem was with that, it would affect all mail sent from your mail server, regardless of the sender domain name. It might be that the forward lookup of your domainb.com is slow or faulty. Many SMTP servers check the name submitted in MAIL FROM for validity, so a DNS problem there can cause trouble. If you let us know the actual domainb.com, we could check it. -- Ben ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Hosting Multiple domains in Exchange 2003
It looks to me like bellsouth.com uses messagelabs. bellsouth.com MX preference = 20, mail exchanger = cluster7a.us.messagelabs.com bellsouth.com MX preference = 30, mail exchanger = cluster7b.us.messagelabs.com bellsouth.com MX preference = 10, mail exchanger = cluster7.us.messagelabs.com not sure where you got mail.bellsouth.com -Original Message- From: Jonathan Gruber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:18 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Hosting Multiple domains in Exchange 2003 DomainB is shirevalleydesign.com DNS entries are correct as far as I can tell. ESM error message is An SMTP protocol error occurred. I get a delay message and then a failure message Could not deliver the message in the time limit specified. I can't telnet into mail.bellsouth.net from that server, but I also tried to telnet from a different location and couldn't there either. Jonathan Gruber Network Administrator J.B. Long Inc. 610-944-8840 x.213 484-637-1978 direct -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:18 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Hosting Multiple domains in Exchange 2003 On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Jonathan Gruber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A user has sent an email to a bellsouth account using domainb which is also hosted on this server and the mail is timing out. What's the exact error message? Have you checked Event Viewer for more info? Have you tried using Exchange SMTP diagnostic logging? Have you tried doing the SMTP dialog manually with the TELNET command? When a test is sent from domain to the bellsouth.net address it goes through, so I assume that the reverse dns lookup bellsouth is doing is failing. That doesn't sound like a reverse lookup issue. Reverse lookup is done against the IP address of your mail server. If the problem was with that, it would affect all mail sent from your mail server, regardless of the sender domain name. It might be that the forward lookup of your domainb.com is slow or faulty. Many SMTP servers check the name submitted in MAIL FROM for validity, so a DNS problem there can cause trouble. If you let us know the actual domainb.com, we could check it. -- Ben ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Hosting Multiple domains in Exchange 2003
Also, nslookup -q=mx shirevalleydesign.com from my workstation failed the first time but worked the 2nd - mxtoolbox (www.mxtoolbox.com) failed 3 or 4 times, then worked when looking up the MX. Not completely propagated yet? Or slow DNS response? -Original Message- From: Don Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:39 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Hosting Multiple domains in Exchange 2003 It looks to me like bellsouth.com uses messagelabs. bellsouth.com MX preference = 20, mail exchanger = cluster7a.us.messagelabs.com bellsouth.com MX preference = 30, mail exchanger = cluster7b.us.messagelabs.com bellsouth.com MX preference = 10, mail exchanger = cluster7.us.messagelabs.com not sure where you got mail.bellsouth.com -Original Message- From: Jonathan Gruber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:18 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Hosting Multiple domains in Exchange 2003 DomainB is shirevalleydesign.com DNS entries are correct as far as I can tell. ESM error message is An SMTP protocol error occurred. I get a delay message and then a failure message Could not deliver the message in the time limit specified. I can't telnet into mail.bellsouth.net from that server, but I also tried to telnet from a different location and couldn't there either. Jonathan Gruber Network Administrator J.B. Long Inc. 610-944-8840 x.213 484-637-1978 direct -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:18 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Hosting Multiple domains in Exchange 2003 On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Jonathan Gruber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A user has sent an email to a bellsouth account using domainb which is also hosted on this server and the mail is timing out. What's the exact error message? Have you checked Event Viewer for more info? Have you tried using Exchange SMTP diagnostic logging? Have you tried doing the SMTP dialog manually with the TELNET command? When a test is sent from domain to the bellsouth.net address it goes through, so I assume that the reverse dns lookup bellsouth is doing is failing. That doesn't sound like a reverse lookup issue. Reverse lookup is done against the IP address of your mail server. If the problem was with that, it would affect all mail sent from your mail server, regardless of the sender domain name. It might be that the forward lookup of your domainb.com is slow or faulty. Many SMTP servers check the name submitted in MAIL FROM for validity, so a DNS problem there can cause trouble. If you let us know the actual domainb.com, we could check it. -- Ben ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: memory upgrade on EX2K3
He did actually infer it, the second paragraph: On 5/23/08, Thomas Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean, that was another article I was reading as well. So I jumped ahead to fast and after reading a few other docs; correct me if I am wrong. But the /userva switch, should I monitor the memory performance after implementing the /3GB and then determine if the PTEs drop then implement? The reason I ask this (may sound dumb) but our EX2K3 is our only server and everything is hosted on it, priv and pub. Our organization is limited on funds and cannot follow MS' best practices. TIA Thomas M -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 8:27 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: memory upgrade on EX2K3 On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Sean Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very informative post, but I didn't catch the part where the OP stated his Exchange server was also a DC. I didn't mean to imply that our situation was identical to his. Those were notes, not advice. :) -- Ben ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: Hosting Multiple domains in Exchange 2003
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Jonathan Gruber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ESM error message is An SMTP protocol error occurred. That's closer to a real cause. The server you're trying to send to is replying with something your server doesn't like. I'm guessing Exchange thinks the error is a temporary one, and thus queues the mail for retry later. The timeout message you're getting is Exchange saying, I've tried several times now, and it still won't go through; I'm giving up. It might be useful to see a transcript of the SMTP session, but before you go to the trouble: DomainB is shirevalleydesign.com It appears you have some lame delegations (that's the actual technical term) in your DNS zone. When a DNS resolver encounters a lame delegation, it usually fails the lookup (returns SERVFAIL). Any MX that gets that result will consider the domain non-existent and reject it. Good money says that's your problem. The GTLD SOA nameserver shows the following delegations for your domain: $ dig +noall +ans NS shirevalleydesign.com. @a.gtld-servers.net shirevalleydesign.com. 172800 IN NS dns3.ptd.net. shirevalleydesign.com. 172800 IN NS dns4.ptd.net. shirevalleydesign.com. 172800 IN NS ns3.zoneedit.com. shirevalleydesign.com. 172800 IN NS ns7.zoneedit.com. $ The two ZoneEdit servers respond with zone information, but the ptd.net servers respond with a referral back to the root. That means those servers believe they are not authoritative for the domain. (Hence lame delegation; you've delegated authority to servers which do not believe they are authoritative.) $ dig +noall +ans +auth ANY shirevalleydesign.com. @dns3.ptd.net com.116724 IN NS i.gtld-servers.net. com.116724 IN NS j.gtld-servers.net. com.116724 IN NS k.gtld-servers.net. com.116724 IN NS l.gtld-servers.net. com.116724 IN NS m.gtld-servers.net. com.116724 IN NS a.gtld-servers.net. com.116724 IN NS b.gtld-servers.net. com.116724 IN NS c.gtld-servers.net. com.116724 IN NS d.gtld-servers.net. com.116724 IN NS e.gtld-servers.net. com.116724 IN NS f.gtld-servers.net. com.116724 IN NS g.gtld-servers.net. com.116724 IN NS h.gtld-servers.net. $ Fix your DNS and try again. Either configure the two ptd.net nameservers with zone information, or remove them as registered nameservers for your domain. -- Ben ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
