RE: Corrupted files attached to emails
My company works with a lot of art files… AI files (Adobe Illustrator) and TIFF files are the main ones. The problem is that a high percentage of them lately seem to be unopenable when they arrive. Although it will be nice to figure out where the corruption is happening a stop gap may be too ask them to zip or preferably rar the files before sending (most AV products look inside zip files). You may have to try and get the original files on optical media and test sending them from various other places to see if they are still corrupted. In these ways you can probably rule out your infrastructure. And ya, what's with the million [sic] layers of scanning hehe? I thought we were fairly paranoid here but... ~JasonG -- ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
E2K7 / Outlook calendar
This morning I got a call from my boss saying she's missing about 75% of what was on her calendar. Looking at her calendar myself, I see a lot of appts up to the weeks prior to this week, but only a very light smattering this week and later. Has anyone ever heard of such a thing? I can't even hypothesize on how some but not all appoints would disappear. What methods does E2K7 have to restore a mailbox? I am not the normal Exchange admin (no comments EZ), but our Exchange admin is away at training this week so I'm lookin' for options. Dave Lum - Systems Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (971)-222-1025 ..remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside - JFK ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: E2K7 / Outlook calendar
Check the users Deleted Items folder and do a recover deleted items to see if they deleted them. Are they positive they had appointments this week? From: Nikki Peterson - OETX [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:21 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: E2K7 / Outlook calendar Just a thought, but I would look for an Archive pst, a filtered view, and/or a device synch gone awry. Nikki From: David Lum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:06 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: E2K7 / Outlook calendar This morning I got a call from my boss saying she's missing about 75% of what was on her calendar. Looking at her calendar myself, I see a lot of appts up to the weeks prior to this week, but only a very light smattering this week and later. Has anyone ever heard of such a thing? I can't even hypothesize on how some but not all appoints would disappear. What methods does E2K7 have to restore a mailbox? I am not the normal Exchange admin (no comments EZ), but our Exchange admin is away at training this week so I'm lookin' for options. Dave Lum - Systems Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (971)-222-1025 ..remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside - JFK ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
New DL
Exchange 2003 I need to create a new DL that includes all but a dozen users (~300 total). What's the easiest way to do this without a lot of manual effort? Roger Wright Network Administrator 727.572.7076 x388 _ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Corrupted files attached to emails
I like the suggestion from one of the others to have them send the attachment to the company address and CC a external mail source like gmail or hotmail. If the one to the company address is corrupt, check the external source to see if it is corrupt. That should show you if it is your systems or one of their outbound gateways. Check the message headers for both messages to see if they used the same outbound gateways on their end. -Original Message- From: David Lum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:56 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Corrupted files attached to emails Hmm...I have a client that has both a Barracuda on the front and Trend Micro on the back end, no issues. Blame Ninja (he says on the list hosted by Ninja's vendor, lol). Dave -Original Message- From: Jason Gurtz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 5:59 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Corrupted files attached to emails My company works with a lot of art files… AI files (Adobe Illustrator) and TIFF files are the main ones. The problem is that a high percentage of them lately seem to be unopenable when they arrive. Although it will be nice to figure out where the corruption is happening a stop gap may be too ask them to zip or preferably rar the files before sending (most AV products look inside zip files). You may have to try and get the original files on optical media and test sending them from various other places to see if they are still corrupted. In these ways you can probably rule out your infrastructure. And ya, what's with the million [sic] layers of scanning hehe? I thought we were fairly paranoid here but... ~JasonG -- ~ 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: New DL
Add them all, remove the 12 you don't want Clayton Doige IT Project Manager CME Development Corporation T: 020 7430 5355 M: 07949 255062 E:[EMAIL PROTECTED] W:www.cetv-net.com From: Roger Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 July 2008 15:53 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: New DL Exchange 2003 I need to create a new DL that includes all but a dozen users (~300 total). What's the easiest way to do this without a lot of manual effort? Roger Wright Network Administrator 727.572.7076 x388 _ __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. __ __ This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this message or its contents may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by electronic mail and delete the original message and any attachments without retaining any copies. _ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: New DL
Server 2003, too? Multi-select everyone in AD and remove the ones you don't want. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Roger Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:53 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: New DL Exchange 2003 I need to create a new DL that includes all but a dozen users (~300 total). What's the easiest way to do this without a lot of manual effort? Roger Wright Network Administrator 727.572.7076 x388 _ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: E2K7 / Outlook calendar
Any PDAs that are sync'd to the mailbox. I have had users delete their calendars, address books and email by not paying attention on their PDA. Bob Fronk [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: David Lum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:06 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: E2K7 / Outlook calendar This morning I got a call from my boss saying she's missing about 75% of what was on her calendar. Looking at her calendar myself, I see a lot of appts up to the weeks prior to this week, but only a very light smattering this week and later. Has anyone ever heard of such a thing? I can't even hypothesize on how some but not all appoints would disappear. What methods does E2K7 have to restore a mailbox? I am not the normal Exchange admin (no comments EZ), but our Exchange admin is away at training this week so I'm lookin' for options. Dave Lum - Systems Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (971)-222-1025 ..remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside - JFK ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
proper order for removing an Exchange server that is also a DC\GC
Need to decommission\repurpose an older physical server that has Exchange, DC and GC on it. I have already conducted a swing migration for Exchange a couple of months ago and transferred the FSMO roles to another DC. My thought is to remove Exchange and then DC promo it down to a member server. Is it that easy-peasy? Shook ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Corrupted files attached to emails
Well, the three serve different purposes :) 1. The Barracuda is set to a low threshold, where it allows more spam than most would allow. In essence, it still stops 95% of the spam that was previously actually hitting our Exchange server from ever reaching it (about 4,000/day), but rarely if ever triggers a false positive. We also block attachments with the Barracuda. 2. Ninja is set to kind of fine-tune the sorting of the remaining spam that gets through the Barracuda. It gives users Spam folders that they can easily look through from within Outlook, and they're used to it. 3. ScanMail is what actually does any virus scanning on the IS. So, it SOUNDS like a bunch of filtering, but probably isn't, in reality :) Evan From: HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 7/29/2008 12:17 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: R: Corrupted files attached to emails Not a bit much filtering ? GuidoElia HELPPC Da: Evan Brastow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: lunedì 28 luglio 2008 23.22 A: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Oggetto: RE: Corrupted files attached to emails Hi Martin, Good point. We do have a Barracuda in front of the email server, We also have Trend Micro ScanMail on the server, as well as Ninja. I suppose there could be some issues there... Thank you, Evan From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 5:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Corrupted files attached to emails Evan, What do you have in front of the Exchange server? Any kind of AV or antispam gateways? AV running on the Exchange server? Exchange actually corrupting attachments itself is rare if ever. Other components in route are more often the culprit. From: Evan Brastow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 1:54 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Corrupted files attached to emails Hi folks, Got a weird problem that's been going on all month. I've talked to my ISP about this, and I'm not sure they're going to come through with anything, so I wanted to bounce it off you guys as well. My company works with a lot of art files... AI files (Adobe Illustrator) and TIFF files are the main ones. The problem is that a high percentage of them lately seem to be unopenable when they arrive. The companies that are sending them are saying they can open them on their end, but they seem corrupted when we go to open them here. Over the weekend, I did an offline defrag, just to clear out any gunk (that's a technical term, I know) that might be causing it. Anyone know how to go about troubleshooting something like this? Exchange 2003 SP2, clients are Outlook 2003 and 2007. Thanks very much J Evan ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Corrupted files attached to emails
I agree that this could be a big help. My only problem is that there are quite a few customers, and getting them all to take this extra step is going to be a challenge. I would really like to figure out why for years beforehand (still running all three products on and around our server) we had no issues, and then suddenly... boink... issues. Well, not boink issues, but... issues. Oh nevermind. This may turn into another Shook thread... From: Jason Gurtz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 7/29/2008 8:59 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Corrupted files attached to emails My company works with a lot of art files... AI files (Adobe Illustrator) and TIFF files are the main ones. The problem is that a high percentage of them lately seem to be unopenable when they arrive. Although it will be nice to figure out where the corruption is happening a stop gap may be too ask them to zip or preferably rar the files before sending (most AV products look inside zip files). You may have to try and get the original files on optical media and test sending them from various other places to see if they are still corrupted. In these ways you can probably rule out your infrastructure. And ya, what's with the million [sic] layers of scanning hehe? I thought we were fairly paranoid here but... ~JasonG -- ~ 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: Corrupted files attached to emails
I do, too. I think I'll ask our biggest customer to start doing that, and see what the results are. I'm also looking into replacing our slightly aging (maybe 6 years old) Cisco router. Thanks, Evan From: Senter, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 7/29/2008 10:59 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Corrupted files attached to emails I like the suggestion from one of the others to have them send the attachment to the company address and CC a external mail source like gmail or hotmail. If the one to the company address is corrupt, check the external source to see if it is corrupt. That should show you if it is your systems or one of their outbound gateways. Check the message headers for both messages to see if they used the same outbound gateways on their end. -Original Message- From: David Lum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:56 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Corrupted files attached to emails Hmm...I have a client that has both a Barracuda on the front and Trend Micro on the back end, no issues. Blame Ninja (he says on the list hosted by Ninja's vendor, lol). Dave -Original Message- From: Jason Gurtz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 5:59 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Corrupted files attached to emails My company works with a lot of art files... AI files (Adobe Illustrator) and TIFF files are the main ones. The problem is that a high percentage of them lately seem to be unopenable when they arrive. Although it will be nice to figure out where the corruption is happening a stop gap may be too ask them to zip or preferably rar the files before sending (most AV products look inside zip files). You may have to try and get the original files on optical media and test sending them from various other places to see if they are still corrupted. In these ways you can probably rule out your infrastructure. And ya, what's with the million [sic] layers of scanning hehe? I thought we were fairly paranoid here but... ~JasonG -- ~ 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: New DL
Easy enough! Thanks... Roger Wright Network Administrator 727.572.7076 x388 _ From: Doige, Clayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:59 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: New DL Add them all, remove the 12 you don't want Clayton Doige IT Project Manager CME Development Corporation T: 020 7430 5355 M: 07949 255062 E:[EMAIL PROTECTED] W:www.cetv-net.com From: Roger Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 July 2008 15:53 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: New DL Exchange 2003 I need to create a new DL that includes all but a dozen users (~300 total). What's the easiest way to do this without a lot of manual effort? Roger Wright Network Administrator 727.572.7076 x388 _ __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. __ __ This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this message or its contents may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by electronic mail and delete the original message and any attachments without retaining any copies. _ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Moving Mailboxes
IMHO - the answer to that depends on your backup and SLA for recoverability. Moving large mailboxes creates a lot of transaction logs. You might want to consider increasing the amount of space you have allocated for the transaction logs temporarily while you're doing the mailbox moves, then cut it back when you're finished. Transaction logs also compress pretty well, so you might consider enabling compression on the transaction log directories if you can afford the processor load without it hurting your performance too much. From: Karsten, Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 12:59 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Moving Mailboxes Exchange Server 2003 SP2. We have always had all of our users (around 1200) in one large store. This single store had grown to be around 400GB. A while ago we decided to start moving all of our users out of this store and into several different stores organized based on desired configuration. We then began moving mailboxes out of the large store in groups into the other stores. This has been going fine for our smaller users. We now have hit a point where we are at our users that have larger mailboxes (200mb - 2gb). As I am moving them in groups, the stores keep dismounting. Looking at the event logs it appears that they are dismounting because the logs are filling up. I did more looking and it appears that the easiest way to fix this is to enable circular logging. Reading more on circular logging, there seem to be mixed opinions on whether it should be enabled or not. So I guess I have 2 questions. 1. Is circular logging the way to go to deal with this? 2. If so, is there anything I need to watch out for? I had been planning just to enable it to finish the mailbox moves and then just turn it off. Matt Karsten ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: Moving Mailboxes
Are you running out of transaction log disk space on the destination server? Or are you hitting log checkpoint depth exhaustion because backups are running while you move mailboxes? In either case - circular logging gets dangerous in case of any hardware problems that take your stores offline. Can you add any storage to the destination server for some extra translog space, instead? --James On 7/29/08, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exchange Server 2003 SP2. We have always had all of our users (around 1200) in one large store. This single store had grown to be around 400GB. A while ago we decided to start moving all of our users out of this store and into several different stores organized based on desired configuration. We then began moving mailboxes out of the large store in groups into the other stores. This has been going fine for our smaller users. We now have hit a point where we are at our users that have larger mailboxes (200mb - 2gb). As I am moving them in groups, the stores keep dismounting. Looking at the event logs it appears that they are dismounting because the logs are filling up. I did more looking and it appears that the easiest way to fix this is to enable circular logging. Reading more on circular logging, there seem to be mixed opinions on whether it should be enabled or not. So I guess I have 2 questions. 1. Is circular logging the way to go to deal with this? 2. If so, is there anything I need to watch out for? I had been planning just to enable it to finish the mailbox moves and then just turn it off. Matt Karsten ~ 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: Moving Mailboxes
Is this the problem you're having? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/905801 --James On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I got plenty of space for the logs on the server (currently 80GB free out of 120GB total on that particular drive). I just verified that the log files are being written to the drive I thought they were. The processor is barely being used on the box so compression wouldn't be bad. Matt From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:06 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Moving Mailboxes IMHO – the answer to that depends on your backup and SLA for recoverability. Moving large mailboxes creates a lot of transaction logs. You might want to consider increasing the amount of space you have allocated for the transaction logs temporarily while you're doing the mailbox moves, then cut it back when you're finished. Transaction logs also compress pretty well, so you might consider enabling compression on the transaction log directories if you can afford the processor load without it hurting your performance too much. From: Karsten, Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 12:59 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Moving Mailboxes Exchange Server 2003 SP2. We have always had all of our users (around 1200) in one large store. This single store had grown to be around 400GB. A while ago we decided to start moving all of our users out of this store and into several different stores organized based on desired configuration. We then began moving mailboxes out of the large store in groups into the other stores. This has been going fine for our smaller users. We now have hit a point where we are at our users that have larger mailboxes (200mb - 2gb). As I am moving them in groups, the stores keep dismounting. Looking at the event logs it appears that they are dismounting because the logs are filling up. I did more looking and it appears that the easiest way to fix this is to enable circular logging. Reading more on circular logging, there seem to be mixed opinions on whether it should be enabled or not. So I guess I have 2 questions. 1. Is circular logging the way to go to deal with this? 2. If so, is there anything I need to watch out for? I had been planning just to enable it to finish the mailbox moves and then just turn it off. Matt Karsten ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Moving Mailboxes
Do frequent Full Backups Move only the # of users between backups that the Log drive has space for. Chuck Robinson ___ Senior Practice Consultant MCSE: Messaging EMC Consulting Phone: 732-321-3644 | Mobile: 973-865-0394 [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.emc.com/consultinghttp://www.emc.com/consulting Transforming Information Into Business Results From: Karsten, Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:44 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Moving Mailboxes I think I got plenty of space for the logs on the server (currently 80GB free out of 120GB total on that particular drive). I just verified that the log files are being written to the drive I thought they were. The processor is barely being used on the box so compression wouldn't be bad. Matt From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:06 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Moving Mailboxes IMHO - the answer to that depends on your backup and SLA for recoverability. Moving large mailboxes creates a lot of transaction logs. You might want to consider increasing the amount of space you have allocated for the transaction logs temporarily while you're doing the mailbox moves, then cut it back when you're finished. Transaction logs also compress pretty well, so you might consider enabling compression on the transaction log directories if you can afford the processor load without it hurting your performance too much. From: Karsten, Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 12:59 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Moving Mailboxes Exchange Server 2003 SP2. We have always had all of our users (around 1200) in one large store. This single store had grown to be around 400GB. A while ago we decided to start moving all of our users out of this store and into several different stores organized based on desired configuration. We then began moving mailboxes out of the large store in groups into the other stores. This has been going fine for our smaller users. We now have hit a point where we are at our users that have larger mailboxes (200mb - 2gb). As I am moving them in groups, the stores keep dismounting. Looking at the event logs it appears that they are dismounting because the logs are filling up. I did more looking and it appears that the easiest way to fix this is to enable circular logging. Reading more on circular logging, there seem to be mixed opinions on whether it should be enabled or not. So I guess I have 2 questions. 1. Is circular logging the way to go to deal with this? 2. If so, is there anything I need to watch out for? I had been planning just to enable it to finish the mailbox moves and then just turn it off. Matt Karsten ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Moving Mailboxes
I don't think I am running out of disk space. I have plenty of free space on the server (80GB free on the log drive). I thought I had the mailbox moves outside of the backup window, but never verified that. I will look into that some more. Now that I have re-read the MS KB Article on this issue, it mentions that, that is probably the place to start. The destination server is actually the same as the source in terms of physical machine. We just gave it additional disk storage space. Matt -Original Message- From: James Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:08 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Moving Mailboxes Are you running out of transaction log disk space on the destination server? Or are you hitting log checkpoint depth exhaustion because backups are running while you move mailboxes? In either case - circular logging gets dangerous in case of any hardware problems that take your stores offline. Can you add any storage to the destination server for some extra translog space, instead? --James On 7/29/08, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exchange Server 2003 SP2. We have always had all of our users (around 1200) in one large store. This single store had grown to be around 400GB. A while ago we decided to start moving all of our users out of this store and into several different stores organized based on desired configuration. We then began moving mailboxes out of the large store in groups into the other stores. This has been going fine for our smaller users. We now have hit a point where we are at our users that have larger mailboxes (200mb - 2gb). As I am moving them in groups, the stores keep dismounting. Looking at the event logs it appears that they are dismounting because the logs are filling up. I did more looking and it appears that the easiest way to fix this is to enable circular logging. Reading more on circular logging, there seem to be mixed opinions on whether it should be enabled or not. So I guess I have 2 questions. 1. Is circular logging the way to go to deal with this? 2. If so, is there anything I need to watch out for? I had been planning just to enable it to finish the mailbox moves and then just turn it off. Matt Karsten ~ 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: Moving Mailboxes
That would be the one. Matt -Original Message- From: James Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:48 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Moving Mailboxes Is this the problem you're having? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/905801 --James On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I got plenty of space for the logs on the server (currently 80GB free out of 120GB total on that particular drive). I just verified that the log files are being written to the drive I thought they were. The processor is barely being used on the box so compression wouldn't be bad. Matt From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:06 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Moving Mailboxes IMHO - the answer to that depends on your backup and SLA for recoverability. Moving large mailboxes creates a lot of transaction logs. You might want to consider increasing the amount of space you have allocated for the transaction logs temporarily while you're doing the mailbox moves, then cut it back when you're finished. Transaction logs also compress pretty well, so you might consider enabling compression on the transaction log directories if you can afford the processor load without it hurting your performance too much. From: Karsten, Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 12:59 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Moving Mailboxes Exchange Server 2003 SP2. We have always had all of our users (around 1200) in one large store. This single store had grown to be around 400GB. A while ago we decided to start moving all of our users out of this store and into several different stores organized based on desired configuration. We then began moving mailboxes out of the large store in groups into the other stores. This has been going fine for our smaller users. We now have hit a point where we are at our users that have larger mailboxes (200mb - 2gb). As I am moving them in groups, the stores keep dismounting. Looking at the event logs it appears that they are dismounting because the logs are filling up. I did more looking and it appears that the easiest way to fix this is to enable circular logging. Reading more on circular logging, there seem to be mixed opinions on whether it should be enabled or not. So I guess I have 2 questions. 1. Is circular logging the way to go to deal with this? 2. If so, is there anything I need to watch out for? I had been planning just to enable it to finish the mailbox moves and then just turn it off. Matt Karsten ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ 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: Moving Mailboxes
Then it's not space that's a problem...you really need to watch how many mailboxes you move during an ESE backup operation. You can only create 1012-ish uncommitted transaction logs before the storage group is taken offline as a precaution. That works out to ~5GB of mailbox data. Can you halt backups when you do the moves, then immediately take a full backup? --James On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be the one. Matt -Original Message- From: James Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:48 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Moving Mailboxes Is this the problem you're having? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/905801 --James On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I got plenty of space for the logs on the server (currently 80GB free out of 120GB total on that particular drive). I just verified that the log files are being written to the drive I thought they were. The processor is barely being used on the box so compression wouldn't be bad. Matt From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:06 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Moving Mailboxes IMHO - the answer to that depends on your backup and SLA for recoverability. Moving large mailboxes creates a lot of transaction logs. You might want to consider increasing the amount of space you have allocated for the transaction logs temporarily while you're doing the mailbox moves, then cut it back when you're finished. Transaction logs also compress pretty well, so you might consider enabling compression on the transaction log directories if you can afford the processor load without it hurting your performance too much. From: Karsten, Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 12:59 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Moving Mailboxes Exchange Server 2003 SP2. We have always had all of our users (around 1200) in one large store. This single store had grown to be around 400GB. A while ago we decided to start moving all of our users out of this store and into several different stores organized based on desired configuration. We then began moving mailboxes out of the large store in groups into the other stores. This has been going fine for our smaller users. We now have hit a point where we are at our users that have larger mailboxes (200mb - 2gb). As I am moving them in groups, the stores keep dismounting. Looking at the event logs it appears that they are dismounting because the logs are filling up. I did more looking and it appears that the easiest way to fix this is to enable circular logging. Reading more on circular logging, there seem to be mixed opinions on whether it should be enabled or not. So I guess I have 2 questions. 1. Is circular logging the way to go to deal with this? 2. If so, is there anything I need to watch out for? I had been planning just to enable it to finish the mailbox moves and then just turn it off. Matt Karsten ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ 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: Moving Mailboxes
Also - it's the DESTINATION server that matters for that KB article/backups during mailbox moves. Not the source. (The destination is the only one creating data, so that's the only one generating much in the way of logs). --James On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think I am running out of disk space. I have plenty of free space on the server (80GB free on the log drive). I thought I had the mailbox moves outside of the backup window, but never verified that. I will look into that some more. Now that I have re-read the MS KB Article on this issue, it mentions that, that is probably the place to start. The destination server is actually the same as the source in terms of physical machine. We just gave it additional disk storage space. Matt -Original Message- From: James Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:08 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Moving Mailboxes Are you running out of transaction log disk space on the destination server? Or are you hitting log checkpoint depth exhaustion because backups are running while you move mailboxes? In either case - circular logging gets dangerous in case of any hardware problems that take your stores offline. Can you add any storage to the destination server for some extra translog space, instead? --James On 7/29/08, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exchange Server 2003 SP2. We have always had all of our users (around 1200) in one large store. This single store had grown to be around 400GB. A while ago we decided to start moving all of our users out of this store and into several different stores organized based on desired configuration. We then began moving mailboxes out of the large store in groups into the other stores. This has been going fine for our smaller users. We now have hit a point where we are at our users that have larger mailboxes (200mb - 2gb). As I am moving them in groups, the stores keep dismounting. Looking at the event logs it appears that they are dismounting because the logs are filling up. I did more looking and it appears that the easiest way to fix this is to enable circular logging. Reading more on circular logging, there seem to be mixed opinions on whether it should be enabled or not. So I guess I have 2 questions. 1. Is circular logging the way to go to deal with this? 2. If so, is there anything I need to watch out for? I had been planning just to enable it to finish the mailbox moves and then just turn it off. Matt Karsten ~ 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: Moving Mailboxes
I never knew how much data the 1012 uncommited transactions logs could hold. If its around 5GB, that's not going to be fun for me, around 40 of my users have over 1GB mailboxes. Then another 120 or so have over 500MB mailboxes. I could make sure backups run right after a move, the problem is, a full backup isn't exactly quick. So when I get to these really large mailboxes, I am going to have to do them in very small groups? I was hoping to avoid extending this out as long as that would take, if I can't, I will deal with that though. Matt -Original Message- From: James Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:57 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Moving Mailboxes Then it's not space that's a problem...you really need to watch how many mailboxes you move during an ESE backup operation. You can only create 1012-ish uncommitted transaction logs before the storage group is taken offline as a precaution. That works out to ~5GB of mailbox data. Can you halt backups when you do the moves, then immediately take a full backup? --James On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be the one. Matt -Original Message- From: James Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:48 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Moving Mailboxes Is this the problem you're having? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/905801 --James On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I got plenty of space for the logs on the server (currently 80GB free out of 120GB total on that particular drive). I just verified that the log files are being written to the drive I thought they were. The processor is barely being used on the box so compression wouldn't be bad. Matt From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:06 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Moving Mailboxes IMHO - the answer to that depends on your backup and SLA for recoverability. Moving large mailboxes creates a lot of transaction logs. You might want to consider increasing the amount of space you have allocated for the transaction logs temporarily while you're doing the mailbox moves, then cut it back when you're finished. Transaction logs also compress pretty well, so you might consider enabling compression on the transaction log directories if you can afford the processor load without it hurting your performance too much. From: Karsten, Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 12:59 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Moving Mailboxes Exchange Server 2003 SP2. We have always had all of our users (around 1200) in one large store. This single store had grown to be around 400GB. A while ago we decided to start moving all of our users out of this store and into several different stores organized based on desired configuration. We then began moving mailboxes out of the large store in groups into the other stores. This has been going fine for our smaller users. We now have hit a point where we are at our users that have larger mailboxes (200mb - 2gb). As I am moving them in groups, the stores keep dismounting. Looking at the event logs it appears that they are dismounting because the logs are filling up. I did more looking and it appears that the easiest way to fix this is to enable circular logging. Reading more on circular logging, there seem to be mixed opinions on whether it should be enabled or not. So I guess I have 2 questions. 1. Is circular logging the way to go to deal with this? 2. If so, is there anything I need to watch out for? I had been planning just to enable it to finish the mailbox moves and then just turn it off. Matt Karsten ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ 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
RE: Moving Mailboxes
I should have phrased that better. This move is between stores on the same server. Before this all started, I added more storage to the server, then made a new storage group and built the stores under that storage group. But all this is happening on the same server. Matt -Original Message- From: James Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:58 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Moving Mailboxes Also - it's the DESTINATION server that matters for that KB article/backups during mailbox moves. Not the source. (The destination is the only one creating data, so that's the only one generating much in the way of logs). --James On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think I am running out of disk space. I have plenty of free space on the server (80GB free on the log drive). I thought I had the mailbox moves outside of the backup window, but never verified that. I will look into that some more. Now that I have re-read the MS KB Article on this issue, it mentions that, that is probably the place to start. The destination server is actually the same as the source in terms of physical machine. We just gave it additional disk storage space. Matt -Original Message- From: James Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:08 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Moving Mailboxes Are you running out of transaction log disk space on the destination server? Or are you hitting log checkpoint depth exhaustion because backups are running while you move mailboxes? In either case - circular logging gets dangerous in case of any hardware problems that take your stores offline. Can you add any storage to the destination server for some extra translog space, instead? --James On 7/29/08, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exchange Server 2003 SP2. We have always had all of our users (around 1200) in one large store. This single store had grown to be around 400GB. A while ago we decided to start moving all of our users out of this store and into several different stores organized based on desired configuration. We then began moving mailboxes out of the large store in groups into the other stores. This has been going fine for our smaller users. We now have hit a point where we are at our users that have larger mailboxes (200mb - 2gb). As I am moving them in groups, the stores keep dismounting. Looking at the event logs it appears that they are dismounting because the logs are filling up. I did more looking and it appears that the easiest way to fix this is to enable circular logging. Reading more on circular logging, there seem to be mixed opinions on whether it should be enabled or not. So I guess I have 2 questions. 1. Is circular logging the way to go to deal with this? 2. If so, is there anything I need to watch out for? I had been planning just to enable it to finish the mailbox moves and then just turn it off. Matt Karsten ~ 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~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: Moving Mailboxes
That's certainly a problem. Unless your SLA lets you alternate incremental and full backups (ie. do moves one night, then incremental backup -- full backup with no moview the next night, etc). For moving large mailboxes - halting full backups during the move operation is pretty much a requirement... For the math on how much 1012 logs will be...if you move mailboxes at a low-usage hour...then nearly all of the translog activity will be from your moves, and 1012 logs x 5MB ~ 5GB of move data. --James On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I never knew how much data the 1012 uncommited transactions logs could hold. If its around 5GB, that's not going to be fun for me, around 40 of my users have over 1GB mailboxes. Then another 120 or so have over 500MB mailboxes. I could make sure backups run right after a move, the problem is, a full backup isn't exactly quick. So when I get to these really large mailboxes, I am going to have to do them in very small groups? I was hoping to avoid extending this out as long as that would take, if I can't, I will deal with that though. Matt -Original Message- From: James Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:57 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Moving Mailboxes Then it's not space that's a problem...you really need to watch how many mailboxes you move during an ESE backup operation. You can only create 1012-ish uncommitted transaction logs before the storage group is taken offline as a precaution. That works out to ~5GB of mailbox data. Can you halt backups when you do the moves, then immediately take a full backup? --James On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be the one. Matt -Original Message- From: James Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:48 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Moving Mailboxes Is this the problem you're having? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/905801 --James On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I got plenty of space for the logs on the server (currently 80GB free out of 120GB total on that particular drive). I just verified that the log files are being written to the drive I thought they were. The processor is barely being used on the box so compression wouldn't be bad. Matt From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:06 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Moving Mailboxes IMHO - the answer to that depends on your backup and SLA for recoverability. Moving large mailboxes creates a lot of transaction logs. You might want to consider increasing the amount of space you have allocated for the transaction logs temporarily while you're doing the mailbox moves, then cut it back when you're finished. Transaction logs also compress pretty well, so you might consider enabling compression on the transaction log directories if you can afford the processor load without it hurting your performance too much. From: Karsten, Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 12:59 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Moving Mailboxes Exchange Server 2003 SP2. We have always had all of our users (around 1200) in one large store. This single store had grown to be around 400GB. A while ago we decided to start moving all of our users out of this store and into several different stores organized based on desired configuration. We then began moving mailboxes out of the large store in groups into the other stores. This has been going fine for our smaller users. We now have hit a point where we are at our users that have larger mailboxes (200mb - 2gb). As I am moving them in groups, the stores keep dismounting. Looking at the event logs it appears that they are dismounting because the logs are filling up. I did more looking and it appears that the easiest way to fix this is to enable circular logging. Reading more on circular logging, there seem to be mixed opinions on whether it should be enabled or not. So I guess I have 2 questions. 1. Is circular logging the way to go to deal with this? 2. If so, is there anything I need to watch out for? I had been planning just to enable it to finish the mailbox moves and then just turn it off. Matt Karsten ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
RE: Moving Mailboxes
I could alternate incrementals in there if I needed to, they prefer fulls but... Is there a Tool that would make this move easier on me in terms of time, free would be nice, but not required. The math - yeah, that makes sense. I should've thought about that. Matt -Original Message- From: James Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:12 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Moving Mailboxes That's certainly a problem. Unless your SLA lets you alternate incremental and full backups (ie. do moves one night, then incremental backup -- full backup with no moview the next night, etc). For moving large mailboxes - halting full backups during the move operation is pretty much a requirement... For the math on how much 1012 logs will be...if you move mailboxes at a low-usage hour...then nearly all of the translog activity will be from your moves, and 1012 logs x 5MB ~ 5GB of move data. --James On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I never knew how much data the 1012 uncommited transactions logs could hold. If its around 5GB, that's not going to be fun for me, around 40 of my users have over 1GB mailboxes. Then another 120 or so have over 500MB mailboxes. I could make sure backups run right after a move, the problem is, a full backup isn't exactly quick. So when I get to these really large mailboxes, I am going to have to do them in very small groups? I was hoping to avoid extending this out as long as that would take, if I can't, I will deal with that though. Matt -Original Message- From: James Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:57 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Moving Mailboxes Then it's not space that's a problem...you really need to watch how many mailboxes you move during an ESE backup operation. You can only create 1012-ish uncommitted transaction logs before the storage group is taken offline as a precaution. That works out to ~5GB of mailbox data. Can you halt backups when you do the moves, then immediately take a full backup? --James On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be the one. Matt -Original Message- From: James Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:48 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Moving Mailboxes Is this the problem you're having? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/905801 --James On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I got plenty of space for the logs on the server (currently 80GB free out of 120GB total on that particular drive). I just verified that the log files are being written to the drive I thought they were. The processor is barely being used on the box so compression wouldn't be bad. Matt From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:06 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Moving Mailboxes IMHO - the answer to that depends on your backup and SLA for recoverability. Moving large mailboxes creates a lot of transaction logs. You might want to consider increasing the amount of space you have allocated for the transaction logs temporarily while you're doing the mailbox moves, then cut it back when you're finished. Transaction logs also compress pretty well, so you might consider enabling compression on the transaction log directories if you can afford the processor load without it hurting your performance too much. From: Karsten, Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 12:59 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Moving Mailboxes Exchange Server 2003 SP2. We have always had all of our users (around 1200) in one large store. This single store had grown to be around 400GB. A while ago we decided to start moving all of our users out of this store and into several different stores organized based on desired configuration. We then began moving mailboxes out of the large store in groups into the other stores. This has been going fine for our smaller users. We now have hit a point where we are at our users that have larger mailboxes (200mb - 2gb). As I am moving them in groups, the stores keep dismounting. Looking at the event logs it appears that they are dismounting because the logs are filling up. I did more looking and it appears that the easiest way to fix this is to enable circular logging. Reading more on circular logging, there seem to be mixed opinions on whether it should be enabled or not. So I guess I have 2 questions. 1. Is circular logging the way to go to deal with this? 2. If so, is there anything I need to watch out for? I had been planning just to enable it to finish the mailbox moves and then just turn it off. Matt Karsten
Re: Moving Mailboxes
Not really a tool for that...NetIQ and Quest's migration tools are going to cost a lot, and aren't really meant for this type of move (and might not even work). You're probably stuck with lots of manual effort. --James On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I could alternate incrementals in there if I needed to, they prefer fulls but... Is there a Tool that would make this move easier on me in terms of time, free would be nice, but not required. The math - yeah, that makes sense. I should've thought about that. Matt -Original Message- From: James Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:12 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Moving Mailboxes That's certainly a problem. Unless your SLA lets you alternate incremental and full backups (ie. do moves one night, then incremental backup -- full backup with no moview the next night, etc). For moving large mailboxes - halting full backups during the move operation is pretty much a requirement... For the math on how much 1012 logs will be...if you move mailboxes at a low-usage hour...then nearly all of the translog activity will be from your moves, and 1012 logs x 5MB ~ 5GB of move data. --James On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I never knew how much data the 1012 uncommited transactions logs could hold. If its around 5GB, that's not going to be fun for me, around 40 of my users have over 1GB mailboxes. Then another 120 or so have over 500MB mailboxes. I could make sure backups run right after a move, the problem is, a full backup isn't exactly quick. So when I get to these really large mailboxes, I am going to have to do them in very small groups? I was hoping to avoid extending this out as long as that would take, if I can't, I will deal with that though. Matt -Original Message- From: James Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:57 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Moving Mailboxes Then it's not space that's a problem...you really need to watch how many mailboxes you move during an ESE backup operation. You can only create 1012-ish uncommitted transaction logs before the storage group is taken offline as a precaution. That works out to ~5GB of mailbox data. Can you halt backups when you do the moves, then immediately take a full backup? --James On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be the one. Matt -Original Message- From: James Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:48 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Moving Mailboxes Is this the problem you're having? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/905801 --James On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Karsten, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I got plenty of space for the logs on the server (currently 80GB free out of 120GB total on that particular drive). I just verified that the log files are being written to the drive I thought they were. The processor is barely being used on the box so compression wouldn't be bad. Matt From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:06 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Moving Mailboxes IMHO - the answer to that depends on your backup and SLA for recoverability. Moving large mailboxes creates a lot of transaction logs. You might want to consider increasing the amount of space you have allocated for the transaction logs temporarily while you're doing the mailbox moves, then cut it back when you're finished. Transaction logs also compress pretty well, so you might consider enabling compression on the transaction log directories if you can afford the processor load without it hurting your performance too much. From: Karsten, Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 12:59 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Moving Mailboxes Exchange Server 2003 SP2. We have always had all of our users (around 1200) in one large store. This single store had grown to be around 400GB. A while ago we decided to start moving all of our users out of this store and into several different stores organized based on desired configuration. We then began moving mailboxes out of the large store in groups into the other stores. This has been going fine for our smaller users. We now have hit a point where we are at our users that have larger mailboxes (200mb - 2gb). As I am moving them in groups, the stores keep dismounting. Looking at the event logs it appears that they are dismounting because the logs are filling up. I did more looking and it appears that the easiest way to fix this is to enable circular logging. Reading more on circular logging, there seem to be mixed
Re: E2K7 / Outlook calendar
New outlook setup and the profile was screwed up and instead of going to Exchange is now 'local' PST. On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Bob Fronk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any PDAs that are sync'd to the mailbox. I have had users delete their calendars, address books and email by not paying attention on their PDA. Bob Fronk [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: David Lum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:06 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: E2K7 / Outlook calendar This morning I got a call from my boss saying she's missing about 75% of what was on her calendar. Looking at her calendar myself, I see a lot of appts up to the weeks prior to this week, but only a very light smattering this week and later. Has anyone ever heard of such a thing? I can't even hypothesize on how some but not all appoints would disappear. What methods does E2K7 have to restore a mailbox? I am not the normal Exchange admin (no comments EZ), but our Exchange admin is away at training this week so I'm lookin' for options. Dave Lum - Systems Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (971)-222-1025 ..remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside - JFK ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Need Exchange Help, Have Money to Pay
I have an Exchange migration coming up that I'm almost sure to need help with. We have a simple setup here, with a single Exchange 2003 server running on a Windows Server 2003 32-bit machine. Around 500 mailboxes. I need to migrate to Exchange 2007 running on a Windows Server 2008 64-bit machine. I'm the one who initially setup Exchange here, but that was a couple of years ago. I haven't really had to mess with it much since then, so I'm nowhere near being an Exchange expert. So I may need to hire one. If you can assist with this project (remotely), please e-mail me off the list. Let me know your hourly rate, and an estimate of how many hours you think it will take. I'm only interested in someone who REALLY knows their stuff. I mean, inside and out. If we pay someone to walk us through this migration, we expect the process to go smoothly and quickly (relatively speaking, of course). I don't want a bunch of trial and error; I could do that much myself. We would likely be tackling this project on a weekend, and I'm in the Eastern time zone. John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District 318 North Clark Street Perry, FL 32347 www.taylor.k12.fl.us ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Mail Gateway vs Exchange
Hi guys and gals, I'm moving this over from the NT Admin forum since it seems to be purely an Exchange issue. I'm still looking for guidance on why and what my DC is trying to send out port 25. Please read from the bottom. Thanks, Paul Yes, all the mail seems to be flowing out just fine. I'm getting rely denied ndr's for a few domains and I seem to be listed with Barracuda still, but no other issues I'm aware of. I'm showing connections using port 25 on both local address and foreign address. The entries which are on local address most of the state values are Time-wait with a pid of 0. The occasional pid of smssmtp. All the foreign addresses showing pid of smssmtp. I must not understand how mail is supposed to flow. I assumed that the mail flowed into and out of the Mail Gateway (my DC), and maybe it did (and still trying), but my Exchange Server seems to be sending it fine since that is the only ip allowed out in my firewall (for smtp traffic). When I installed Ninja on my Exchange Box I uninstalled Symantec for Exchange (or whatever it's called). My plan was to also take Symantec Mail Security for SMTP off the DC, but decide that it was an extra layer of Security that wasn't hurting anything. I can't remember if we did anything to change the flow of outgoing email at that time or not. Paul From: Tim Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:15 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists And those are connections from the DC to the firewall (and not the reverse)? Something is misconfigured or you misunderstand how mail is supposed to flow. Is all the mail flowing outbound that is supposed to be? ...Tim From: Paul Everett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:05 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists It's the Symantec Mail Security for SMTP. Now what? From: Tim Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:54 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists It sounds like either something is misconfigured, your DC is infected or you don't correctly understand how mail is supposed to flow in your network. Get on your DC and run netstat -no and looks for connection to port 25 on your firewall. Then look up the PID in task manager to see what process on the DC is sending the mail. ...Tim From: Paul Everett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 6:00 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists Everything is looking good this morning, as far as our email is concerned and so far still off the blacklists. In host watch of the Watchguard System Manager, I am getting numerous (hundreds/minute) outbound Filtered-SMTP denies from my DC (which is my mail gateway). I thought mail was just going thru there one-way (incoming). Mail in -WG Firewall - DC (Symantec Mail Security for SMTP) - Exchange Server - WG Firewall - Mail out. Could there just be a misconfiguration on my DC? Paul From: Paul Everett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 6:52 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists They are proxy's. I have two defined. One called SMTP and it has the incoming set From: any, To: WG ip - DC (mail gateway). The outgoing tab is disabled. The other proxy is called Filtered-SMTP. It's Incoming is Disabled and the Outgoing is set From: Any, To: Any. I change this From: Exchange ip, To: Any. I've never been able to figure logging on the WG. I can never find the logs and for email, I can't find where to set the address?? The WG interface seems so simple, but it really makes me feel like an idiot at times. Hope this is good enough damage control for tonight. I'll be back in the am to check things and do more investigating. Thanks for all the suggestions. Paul From: Dennis Hoefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 6:24 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists Open Policy Manager on the Watchguard 700, you will have either a proxy or filter policy for SMTP. On the Outgoing tab, set From: to the IP address of your mail server and To: to all The default rule is all to all, which will allow traffic from port 25 to pass from any machine on your network. By setting From: to only your mail server IP, you will block any internal machines that may be attempting to send SMTP traffic on their own. You can also set the rule to log denied traffic which will quickly identify internal machines that are attempting to use port 25. Configuration is a little different on the newer Watchguard boxes, but should be pretty straight forward on the 700. If the problem persists, then you're back to a relay problem or compromised mail server. Dennis
RE: Mail Gateway vs Exchange
What do you mean by mail gateway? A mail gateway is responsible for sending receiving. Your exchange server should receive it's mail from the mail gateway and send through the mail gateway. Is that not how it is set up? S From: Paul Everett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 5:43 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Mail Gateway vs Exchange Hi guys and gals, I'm moving this over from the NT Admin forum since it seems to be purely an Exchange issue. I'm still looking for guidance on why and what my DC is trying to send out port 25. Please read from the bottom. Thanks, Paul Yes, all the mail seems to be flowing out just fine. I'm getting rely denied ndr's for a few domains and I seem to be listed with Barracuda still, but no other issues I'm aware of. I'm showing connections using port 25 on both local address and foreign address. The entries which are on local address most of the state values are Time-wait with a pid of 0. The occasional pid of smssmtp. All the foreign addresses showing pid of smssmtp. I must not understand how mail is supposed to flow. I assumed that the mail flowed into and out of the Mail Gateway (my DC), and maybe it did (and still trying), but my Exchange Server seems to be sending it fine since that is the only ip allowed out in my firewall (for smtp traffic). When I installed Ninja on my Exchange Box I uninstalled Symantec for Exchange (or whatever it's called). My plan was to also take Symantec Mail Security for SMTP off the DC, but decide that it was an extra layer of Security that wasn't hurting anything. I can't remember if we did anything to change the flow of outgoing email at that time or not. Paul From: Tim Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:15 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists And those are connections from the DC to the firewall (and not the reverse)? Something is misconfigured or you misunderstand how mail is supposed to flow. Is all the mail flowing outbound that is supposed to be? ...Tim From: Paul Everett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:05 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists It's the Symantec Mail Security for SMTP. Now what? From: Tim Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:54 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists It sounds like either something is misconfigured, your DC is infected or you don't correctly understand how mail is supposed to flow in your network. Get on your DC and run netstat -no and looks for connection to port 25 on your firewall. Then look up the PID in task manager to see what process on the DC is sending the mail. ...Tim From: Paul Everett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 6:00 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists Everything is looking good this morning, as far as our email is concerned and so far still off the blacklists. In host watch of the Watchguard System Manager, I am getting numerous (hundreds/minute) outbound Filtered-SMTP denies from my DC (which is my mail gateway). I thought mail was just going thru there one-way (incoming). Mail in -WG Firewall - DC (Symantec Mail Security for SMTP) - Exchange Server - WG Firewall - Mail out. Could there just be a misconfiguration on my DC? Paul From: Paul Everett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 6:52 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists They are proxy's. I have two defined. One called SMTP and it has the incoming set From: any, To: WG ip - DC (mail gateway). The outgoing tab is disabled. The other proxy is called Filtered-SMTP. It's Incoming is Disabled and the Outgoing is set From: Any, To: Any. I change this From: Exchange ip, To: Any. I've never been able to figure logging on the WG. I can never find the logs and for email, I can't find where to set the address?? The WG interface seems so simple, but it really makes me feel like an idiot at times. Hope this is good enough damage control for tonight. I'll be back in the am to check things and do more investigating. Thanks for all the suggestions. Paul From: Dennis Hoefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 6:24 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists Open Policy Manager on the Watchguard 700, you will have either a proxy or filter policy for SMTP. On the Outgoing tab, set From: to the IP address of your mail server and To: to all The default rule is all to all, which will allow traffic from port 25 to pass from any machine on your network. By setting From: to only your mail server IP, you will block any internal machines that may be attempting to send SMTP traffic on their own. You can also set the rule to log denied traffic
RE: Mail Gateway vs Exchange
Sounds to me like SMS is trying to send NDRs. Either that or relay mail. Stop it from sending NDRs. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Paul Everett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 4:43 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Mail Gateway vs Exchange Hi guys and gals, I'm moving this over from the NT Admin forum since it seems to be purely an Exchange issue. I'm still looking for guidance on why and what my DC is trying to send out port 25. Please read from the bottom. Thanks, Paul Yes, all the mail seems to be flowing out just fine. I'm getting rely denied ndr's for a few domains and I seem to be listed with Barracuda still, but no other issues I'm aware of. I'm showing connections using port 25 on both local address and foreign address. The entries which are on local address most of the state values are Time-wait with a pid of 0. The occasional pid of smssmtp. All the foreign addresses showing pid of smssmtp. I must not understand how mail is supposed to flow. I assumed that the mail flowed into and out of the Mail Gateway (my DC), and maybe it did (and still trying), but my Exchange Server seems to be sending it fine since that is the only ip allowed out in my firewall (for smtp traffic). When I installed Ninja on my Exchange Box I uninstalled Symantec for Exchange (or whatever it's called). My plan was to also take Symantec Mail Security for SMTP off the DC, but decide that it was an extra layer of Security that wasn't hurting anything. I can't remember if we did anything to change the flow of outgoing email at that time or not. Paul _ From: Tim Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:15 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists And those are connections from the DC to the firewall (and not the reverse)? Something is misconfigured or you misunderstand how mail is supposed to flow. Is all the mail flowing outbound that is supposed to be? .Tim From: Paul Everett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:05 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists It's the Symantec Mail Security for SMTP. Now what? _ From: Tim Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:54 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists It sounds like either something is misconfigured, your DC is infected or you don't correctly understand how mail is supposed to flow in your network. Get on your DC and run netstat -no and looks for connection to port 25 on your firewall. Then look up the PID in task manager to see what process on the DC is sending the mail. .Tim From: Paul Everett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 6:00 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists Everything is looking good this morning, as far as our email is concerned and so far still off the blacklists. In host watch of the Watchguard System Manager, I am getting numerous (hundreds/minute) outbound Filtered-SMTP denies from my DC (which is my mail gateway). I thought mail was just going thru there one-way (incoming). Mail in -WG Firewall - DC (Symantec Mail Security for SMTP) - Exchange Server - WG Firewall - Mail out. Could there just be a misconfiguration on my DC? Paul _ From: Paul Everett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 6:52 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists They are proxy's. I have two defined. One called SMTP and it has the incoming set From: any, To: WG ip - DC (mail gateway). The outgoing tab is disabled. The other proxy is called Filtered-SMTP. It's Incoming is Disabled and the Outgoing is set From: Any, To: Any. I change this From: Exchange ip, To: Any. I've never been able to figure logging on the WG. I can never find the logs and for email, I can't find where to set the address?? The WG interface seems so simple, but it really makes me feel like an idiot at times. Hope this is good enough damage control for tonight. I'll be back in the am to check things and do more investigating. Thanks for all the suggestions. Paul _ From: Dennis Hoefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 6:24 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists Open Policy Manager on the Watchguard 700, you will have either a proxy or filter policy for SMTP. On the Outgoing tab, set From: to the IP address of your mail server and To: to all The default rule is all to all, which will allow traffic from port 25 to pass from any machine on your network. By setting From: to only your mail server IP, you will block any internal machines that may be attempting to send SMTP traffic on their own. You can also set the rule to log denied traffic which will quickly identify internal machines that are
RE: Mail Gateway vs Exchange
I originally thought mail came in and back out the mail gateway (my DC), but after configuring my WG to only allow smtp out from my Exchange Server I have my doubts. As you can see, I don't know. All I can tell you is what I thought and what is happening now. Maybe there is some confusion as to what my mail gateway is. It would be my WG firewall if it sent all incoming smtp traffic to my Exchange Server, which was my original plan when I put Ninja on the Exchange Server, but I left it configured to send all incoming smtp traffic to my DC, just as it was when I was using Symantec Enterprise. Since I left Symantec Mail Security for SMTP on the DC, I kept the WG configured to send incoming smtp traffic to it, which forwards it to the Exchange Server. This has always been clear to me, it's what happens to outgoing smtp traffic that has me confused now. From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Exchange (Sunbelt) Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 4:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Mail Gateway vs Exchange What do you mean by mail gateway? A mail gateway is responsible for sending receiving. Your exchange server should receive it's mail from the mail gateway and send through the mail gateway. Is that not how it is set up? S From: Paul Everett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 5:43 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Mail Gateway vs Exchange Hi guys and gals, I'm moving this over from the NT Admin forum since it seems to be purely an Exchange issue. I'm still looking for guidance on why and what my DC is trying to send out port 25. Please read from the bottom. Thanks, Paul Yes, all the mail seems to be flowing out just fine. I'm getting rely denied ndr's for a few domains and I seem to be listed with Barracuda still, but no other issues I'm aware of. I'm showing connections using port 25 on both local address and foreign address. The entries which are on local address most of the state values are Time-wait with a pid of 0. The occasional pid of smssmtp. All the foreign addresses showing pid of smssmtp. I must not understand how mail is supposed to flow. I assumed that the mail flowed into and out of the Mail Gateway (my DC), and maybe it did (and still trying), but my Exchange Server seems to be sending it fine since that is the only ip allowed out in my firewall (for smtp traffic). When I installed Ninja on my Exchange Box I uninstalled Symantec for Exchange (or whatever it's called). My plan was to also take Symantec Mail Security for SMTP off the DC, but decide that it was an extra layer of Security that wasn't hurting anything. I can't remember if we did anything to change the flow of outgoing email at that time or not. Paul From: Tim Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:15 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists And those are connections from the DC to the firewall (and not the reverse)? Something is misconfigured or you misunderstand how mail is supposed to flow. Is all the mail flowing outbound that is supposed to be? ...Tim From: Paul Everett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:05 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists It's the Symantec Mail Security for SMTP. Now what? From: Tim Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:54 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists It sounds like either something is misconfigured, your DC is infected or you don't correctly understand how mail is supposed to flow in your network. Get on your DC and run netstat -no and looks for connection to port 25 on your firewall. Then look up the PID in task manager to see what process on the DC is sending the mail. ...Tim From: Paul Everett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 6:00 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists Everything is looking good this morning, as far as our email is concerned and so far still off the blacklists. In host watch of the Watchguard System Manager, I am getting numerous (hundreds/minute) outbound Filtered-SMTP denies from my DC (which is my mail gateway). I thought mail was just going thru there one-way (incoming). Mail in -WG Firewall - DC (Symantec Mail Security for SMTP) - Exchange Server - WG Firewall - Mail out. Could there just be a misconfiguration on my DC? Paul From: Paul Everett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 6:52 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists They are proxy's. I have two defined. One called SMTP and it has the incoming set From: any, To: WG ip - DC (mail gateway). The outgoing tab is disabled. The other proxy is called Filtered-SMTP. It's
RE: Mail Gateway vs Exchange
As far as I can tell it was only set to send admin alerts, which I have stopped (unchecked). I don't see anywhere to setup to send NDR's or to relay mail. I haven't hardly looked at the SMS in over a year since we got Ninja, but there isn't much to look at. From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 4:52 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Mail Gateway vs Exchange Sounds to me like SMS is trying to send NDRs. Either that or relay mail. Stop it from sending NDRs. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Paul Everett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 4:43 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Mail Gateway vs Exchange Hi guys and gals, I'm moving this over from the NT Admin forum since it seems to be purely an Exchange issue. I'm still looking for guidance on why and what my DC is trying to send out port 25. Please read from the bottom. Thanks, Paul Yes, all the mail seems to be flowing out just fine. I'm getting rely denied ndr's for a few domains and I seem to be listed with Barracuda still, but no other issues I'm aware of. I'm showing connections using port 25 on both local address and foreign address. The entries which are on local address most of the state values are Time-wait with a pid of 0. The occasional pid of smssmtp. All the foreign addresses showing pid of smssmtp. I must not understand how mail is supposed to flow. I assumed that the mail flowed into and out of the Mail Gateway (my DC), and maybe it did (and still trying), but my Exchange Server seems to be sending it fine since that is the only ip allowed out in my firewall (for smtp traffic). When I installed Ninja on my Exchange Box I uninstalled Symantec for Exchange (or whatever it's called). My plan was to also take Symantec Mail Security for SMTP off the DC, but decide that it was an extra layer of Security that wasn't hurting anything. I can't remember if we did anything to change the flow of outgoing email at that time or not. Paul From: Tim Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:15 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists And those are connections from the DC to the firewall (and not the reverse)? Something is misconfigured or you misunderstand how mail is supposed to flow. Is all the mail flowing outbound that is supposed to be? ...Tim From: Paul Everett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:05 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists It's the Symantec Mail Security for SMTP. Now what? From: Tim Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:54 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists It sounds like either something is misconfigured, your DC is infected or you don't correctly understand how mail is supposed to flow in your network. Get on your DC and run netstat -no and looks for connection to port 25 on your firewall. Then look up the PID in task manager to see what process on the DC is sending the mail. ...Tim From: Paul Everett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 6:00 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists Everything is looking good this morning, as far as our email is concerned and so far still off the blacklists. In host watch of the Watchguard System Manager, I am getting numerous (hundreds/minute) outbound Filtered-SMTP denies from my DC (which is my mail gateway). I thought mail was just going thru there one-way (incoming). Mail in -WG Firewall - DC (Symantec Mail Security for SMTP) - Exchange Server - WG Firewall - Mail out. Could there just be a misconfiguration on my DC? Paul From: Paul Everett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 6:52 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists They are proxy's. I have two defined. One called SMTP and it has the incoming set From: any, To: WG ip - DC (mail gateway). The outgoing tab is disabled. The other proxy is called Filtered-SMTP. It's Incoming is Disabled and the Outgoing is set From: Any, To: Any. I change this From: Exchange ip, To: Any. I've never been able to figure logging on the WG. I can never find the logs and for email, I can't find where to set the address?? The WG interface seems so simple, but it really makes me feel like an idiot at times. Hope this is good enough damage control for tonight. I'll be back in the am to check things and do more investigating. Thanks for all the suggestions. Paul From: Dennis Hoefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 6:24 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: blacklists
