transport rule to Public folder mail enabled folder.
I have a transport rule using Exchange 2007 monitoring emails delivered to a distribution list, picking text from the subject and forwarding those emails to a mail enabled public folder. Because I cannot select the Public folder in the Transport rule, I am sending to a distribution list which has the email address of the public folder in it, the public folder has default contributor. The rule doesn't seems to work, any body doing something similar to a public folder?
RE: Remote wipe of ActiveSync devices
I have seen the option for Device Security in ESM. At the moment non of the Device Security options are ticked.(under Enforce Password on device) We do have the other options ticked that are presented on the first page under the heading Exchange ActiveSync John From: Bill Songstad [mailto:bsongs...@gmail.com] Sent: 11 August 2010 16:34 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Remote wipe of ActiveSync devices I'm only familiar with Exchange 2003, but there the policy is set in exchange system manager. Global settings mobile services device security. Bill On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Ellis, John P. johnel...@wirral.gov.uk wrote: What policy do I need to apply and where from? John From: Bill Songstad [mailto:bsongs...@gmail.com] Sent: 11 August 2010 16:22 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Remote wipe of ActiveSync devices Until you have a policy applied to the device, auto-lock I think, only block and delete will be available. This tripped me up a while back. I never found a way to get away from the locking requirement. -Bill On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Ellis, John P. johnel...@wirral.gov.uk wrote: Sean Thanks for the reply. With you now.I was hoping it would show me whats been going on. Since the email I have installed the software on the DMZ boxes. What I dont see is an option to wipe the device, only Block and Delete. I will do a search for activesync reporting Thanks John -Original Message- From: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com] Sent: 11 August 2010 15:20 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Remote wipe of ActiveSync devices John, The transaction log within the mobile admin only shows what actions have been performed within the tool. This includes the remote wipe of a device, canceling a remote wipe request, and deleting a partnership with a mailbox. It is not intended to show communication stats between the device and Exchange. If you require that type of reporting, search for activesync reporting with logparser. I'm not at my office otherwise I'd give you the link. - Sean On Aug 11, 2010, at 12:56 AM, Ellis, John P. johnel...@wirral.gov.uk wrote: We have Exchange 2003 with Outlook 2003/2007 Windows Mobile devices running ActiveSync to get emails via a 3g/GPRS connection In the DMZ we have two Front end OWA servers which host the OWA pages for External access and ISA Servers. ISA Servers publish the rule that allows access to ActiveSync On the internal network we have two other front end OWA servers which host the internal OWA pages etc, on the internal Front End servers the MobileAdmin pack has been installed When looking at the transaction log files from within the MobileAdmin webpage it doesn't appear to show all the transactions. I have done some test syncs from my device and this doesn't show in the transaction log. Question time: Should the MobileAdmin pack be installed in the DMZ rather than the internal network? Where does the MobileAdmin pack get the info from for the log files? Anyone else run the MobileAdmin pack with good results? Thanks John ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.clearswift.com http://www.clearswift.com/
Is ex2007 really that bad?
Once upon a time we had a server that was the only DC in a single forest with a single domain (so a one trick pony) and it was the Exchange server also. Then we grew and got a new server and moved exchange over. Now we also have a second DC and still growing. In a recent exercise we set up 1 DC and 1 Exchange box and then trashed it all to start over but we kept the mailbox database. It seems that now we have set up a new DC and Exchange server (and so a new domain) we cant get any data out of our old MDB into our new set up because the database is from a different domain. Is this really the case, is the data in the mailbox database completely inaccessible? I have taken PST exports so I will be hopefully reimporting them after I have remade the mailboxes however, cast your mind back to our one trick pony set up, this means that if that server ever died it would have been the end of the domain and so backups of exchange would have been useless, surely Exchange 2007 can't be that bad? -- Regards, James. http://www.jamesbensley.co.cc/ There are 10 kinds of people in the world; Those who understand Vigesimal, and J others...?
RE: Is ex2007 really that bad?
You have to have a matching organization name and administrative group name. That's all. Since Exchange 2007 sets the admin group for you, I will conclude that you entered a different organization name. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: James Bensley [mailto:jwbens...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 10:03 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Is ex2007 really that bad? Once upon a time we had a server that was the only DC in a single forest with a single domain (so a one trick pony) and it was the Exchange server also. Then we grew and got a new server and moved exchange over. Now we also have a second DC and still growing. In a recent exercise we set up 1 DC and 1 Exchange box and then trashed it all to start over but we kept the mailbox database. It seems that now we have set up a new DC and Exchange server (and so a new domain) we cant get any data out of our old MDB into our new set up because the database is from a different domain. Is this really the case, is the data in the mailbox database completely inaccessible? I have taken PST exports so I will be hopefully reimporting them after I have remade the mailboxes however, cast your mind back to our one trick pony set up, this means that if that server ever died it would have been the end of the domain and so backups of exchange would have been useless, surely Exchange 2007 can't be that bad? -- Regards, James. http://www.jamesbensley.co.cc/ There are 10 kinds of people in the world; Those who understand Vigesimal, and J others...?
RE: transport rule to Public folder mail enabled folder.
I _think_ that email security for a PF is controlled by Anonymous, not by Default. At least temporarily, try setting Anonymous to Contributor and see if it works... Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Paul Cookman [mailto:paul.cook...@selection.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:05 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: transport rule to Public folder mail enabled folder. I have a transport rule using Exchange 2007 monitoring emails delivered to a distribution list, picking text from the subject and forwarding those emails to a mail enabled public folder. Because I cannot select the Public folder in the Transport rule, I am sending to a distribution list which has the email address of the public folder in it, the public folder has default contributor. The rule doesn't seems to work, any body doing something similar to a public folder?
Re: Is ex2007 really that bad?
On 12 August 2010 15:14, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.com wrote: You have to have a matching organization name and administrative group name. That's all. Since Exchange 2007 sets the admin group for you, I will conclude that you entered a different organization name. Interesting, yes we did enter a different organization name. Can this be changed? -- Regards, James. http://www.jamesbensley.co.cc/ There are 10 kinds of people in the world; Those who understand Vigesimal, and J others...?
RE: Is ex2007 really that bad?
Not in a supported manner. If the new orgname is shorter than (or the same length as) the old orgname you can binpatch the EDB, checkpoint, and log files - if you are comfortable with such things (don't forget to update the CRC and ECC). But that's tricky business and completely unsupported. The closest you could come to supportabiity would be to completely remove Exchange from a forest, remove the Exchange tree from active directory, remove all the Exchange groups from AD, and then reinstall with a matching orgname. However, that's going to cause some serious ACL pollution for the rest of the life of that AD. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: James Bensley [mailto:jwbens...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 10:51 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Is ex2007 really that bad? On 12 August 2010 15:14, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.com wrote: You have to have a matching organization name and administrative group name. That's all. Since Exchange 2007 sets the admin group for you, I will conclude that you entered a different organization name. Interesting, yes we did enter a different organization name. Can this be changed? -- Regards, James. http://www.jamesbensley.co.cc/ There are 10 kinds of people in the world; Those who understand Vigesimal, and J others...?
Re: Is ex2007 really that bad?
I don't think there is a supported way to do it in production without uninstalling and reinstalling Exchange. I have used legacydn in a purpose-built virtual Exchange 2003 environment to recover some data from old backups, but as soon as I was done I nuked the whole thing. (I wouldn't have had to do change the org name if I had realized it was not the default when I built the one off virtual domain. I used legacydn to save time and not have to rebuild the temporary domain.) http://support.microsoft.com/kb/324606 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:50 AM, James Bensley jwbens...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 August 2010 15:14, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.com wrote: You have to have a matching organization name and administrative group name. That's all. Since Exchange 2007 sets the admin group for you, I will conclude that you entered a different organization name. Interesting, yes we did enter a different organization name. Can this be changed? -- Regards, James. http://www.jamesbensley.co.cc/ There are 10 kinds of people in the world; Those who understand Vigesimal, and J others...?
RE: transport rule to Public folder mail enabled folder.
Thank you, I have resolved this now. It was the rule in the transport rule needed setting to text pattern in the subject rather than exact words which was a little higher up in the list..., you know what I mean.. For reference it was set to anonymous so thank you for the idea. From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: 12 August 2010 15:23 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: transport rule to Public folder mail enabled folder. I _think_ that email security for a PF is controlled by Anonymous, not by Default. At least temporarily, try setting Anonymous to Contributor and see if it works... Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Paul Cookman [mailto:paul.cook...@selection.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:05 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: transport rule to Public folder mail enabled folder. I have a transport rule using Exchange 2007 monitoring emails delivered to a distribution list, picking text from the subject and forwarding those emails to a mail enabled public folder. Because I cannot select the Public folder in the Transport rule, I am sending to a distribution list which has the email address of the public folder in it, the public folder has default contributor. The rule doesn't seems to work, any body doing something similar to a public folder? -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: LogParser and Message Tracking
Michael,
The command you provided worked perfectly, thanks so much!
- Sean
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.comwrote:
So? Does logparser work for you otherwise?
LogParser.exe -i:W3C -o:TSV select TO_TIMESTAMP( STRCAT( '2010-09-10',
STRCAT(' ', STRREV( SUB( STRREV( TIME ) , 'TMG ') ))),'-MM-dd h:m:s') AS
DateTime, Recipient-Address AS RcptAddress, MSGID, Number-Recipients AS
NumRcpts, Message-Subject AS Subject, Sender-Address AS Sender from
20100812.log to myfile.tab GROUP BY DateTime, MSGID, Recipient-Address,
Number-Recipients, Message-Subject, Sender-Address -filemode:0
Regards,
Michael B. Smith
Consultant and Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/
*From:* Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:42 PM
*To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues
*Subject:* Re: LogParser and Message Tracking
Yes, it is enabled. I can find the subject in various logs manually, just
trying to figure why logparser wont find it.
On Aug 11, 2010, at 4:34 PM, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.com
wrote:
Well, the number one question I have is whether you have “subject
logging” turned on for that Exchange server…
Regards,
Michael B. Smith
Consultant and Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/
*From:* Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 11, 2010 4:12 PM
*To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues
*Subject:* LogParser and Message Tracking
Hello all,
I'm trying to use log parser against my Exchange 2003 Message Tracking logs
to gather some data. Initially, I'm just trying to count the number of
e-mail messages with a specific subject line.
I'm running the following command against a log that I know contains
messages with the subject in question, however my results are returning 0
instances. Here's the command I'm running:
logparser.exe -i:W3C SELECT * FROM '\\ServerName\Path\LogName' WHERE
Message-Subject like'ExampleSubject' -O:CSV c:\test.csv
I'm actually calling this from another batch script so that I can pass the
log name as a variable, since my goal is to search all logs. I've also tried
specifying a single log file name that I know contains what I'm looking for.
Ultimately I'd like to capture the sender and recipient information for all
messages sent with a specific subject, but I think I need to at least get an
idea of how many messages I'm dealing with.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
- Sean
Email texting to ATT cell phones
Anyone having problems sending an email to an ATT cell phone as an SMS (via email address xxx-xxx-x...@text.att.net)? All of a sudden, our messages are not reaching our cell phones. This just affects our ATT phones. Some customer service person at ATT told our people that they are transitioning people away from email messages to cell phones as text. We pay for an SMS package. I'm clueless as to why they would care about the source when we pay for the SMS volume. Anyone else experiencing this? How are you generating SMS messages to non-mobile-email-enable devices? We've always preached that SMS is not a guaranteed service/delivery so time sensitive needs shouldn't be pushed there, but we're going to have to come up with another deployment if ATT sticks to their guns. -Joe Louis
RE: Email texting to ATT cell phones
There is a widespread ATT outage in the Kentucky area with over 150 sites down. There is also a large Windstream outage in Georgia and Kentucky. I don't know if they are related. However, both are causing me a great deal of headache today. -- BF From: Louis, Joe [mailto:jlo...@guardianalarm.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 12:11 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Email texting to ATT cell phones Anyone having problems sending an email to an ATT cell phone as an SMS (via email address xxx-xxx-x...@text.att.netmailto:xxx-xxx-x...@text.att.net)? All of a sudden, our messages are not reaching our cell phones. This just affects our ATT phones. Some customer service person at ATT told our people that they are transitioning people away from email messages to cell phones as text. We pay for an SMS package. I'm clueless as to why they would care about the source when we pay for the SMS volume. Anyone else experiencing this? How are you generating SMS messages to non-mobile-email-enable devices? We've always preached that SMS is not a guaranteed service/delivery so time sensitive needs shouldn't be pushed there, but we're going to have to come up with another deployment if ATT sticks to their guns. -Joe Louis
RE: Email texting to ATT cell phones
Thanks Doug. Ya, I just included the dashes for formatting in the message to the list. We don't use them when sending. We also use txt.att.net instead of what I typed. I've been checking all the usual places for outage notices and can't find anything. About a year ago, ATT was trying to fix their congestion problems and moved the email addresses when tons of people went out and got iPhones. Google just pointed me to an FAQ on their page: http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/messaging-internet/messaging/faq.jsp#email Q. Can I send and receive email messages using my wireless phone? A. All wireless phones are set up to send and receive email messages by using the following address: yournum...@txt.att.net. You can exchange short emails with any email address worldwide. I'm thinking (hoping) that there is an outage/delay that just hasn't been realized yet. From: Doug Rooney [mailto:d...@sonomatilemakers.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 12:30 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Email texting to ATT cell phones I tried sending to my phone (Palm Trio 650) using the format you showed below, and this is what got. I replaced my number with XXXs I did try again leaving out the - between the numbers, No bounce, but nothing on my phone either. This is the mail delivery agent at messagelabs.com. I was not able to deliver your message to the following addresses. 707-xxx-x...@text.att.netmailto:707-xxx-x...@text.att.net: 209.183.32.63 failed after I sent the message. Remote host said: 550 Invalid recipient: 707-xxx-x...@cingularme.commailto:707-xxx-x...@cingularme.com --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: d...@sonomatilemakers.commailto:d...@sonomatilemakers.com X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: d...@sonomatilemakers.commailto:d...@sonomatilemakers.com X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-144.messagelabs.com!1281630114!38480179!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [64.168.138.228] Received: (qmail 4753 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2010 16:21:55 - Received: from adsl-64-168-138-228.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (HELO webmail.sonomatilemakers.com) (64.168.138.228) by server-13.tower-144.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 2010 16:21:55 - Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01CB3A3A.8FB0682D; type=multipart/alternative Subject: FW: Email texting to ATT cell phones Disposition-Notification-To: Doug Rooney d...@sonomatilemakers.commailto:d...@sonomatilemakers.com X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:22:28 -0700 Message-ID: cd4eebf2c7013140afd143cfce1f8019021fe...@stm.sonomatile.localmailto:cd4eebf2c7013140afd143cfce1f8019021fe...@stm.sonomatile.local Thank You [cid:image001.jpg@01CB3A1B.F45FD400] From: Louis, Joe [mailto:jlo...@guardianalarm.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 9:11 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Email texting to ATT cell phones Anyone having problems sending an email to an ATT cell phone as an SMS (via email address xxx-xxx-x...@text.att.netmailto:xxx-xxx-x...@text.att.net)? All of a sudden, our messages are not reaching our cell phones. This just affects our ATT phones. Some customer service person at ATT told our people that they are transitioning people away from email messages to cell phones as text. We pay for an SMS package. I'm clueless as to why they would care about the source when we pay for the SMS volume. Anyone else experiencing this? How are you generating SMS messages to non-mobile-email-enable devices? We've always preached that SMS is not a guaranteed service/delivery so time sensitive needs shouldn't be pushed there, but we're going to have to come up with another deployment if ATT sticks to their guns. -Joe Louis inline: image001.jpg
RE: LogParser and Message Tracking
At that moment when the wheels begin to turn the brain, usually think
to myself now gone, there comes a deep breath buckshot!
LOL
From: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 10:39 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: LogParser and Message Tracking
Rubens,
I appreciate the link. Your examples actually provided quite
informative. Plus, it was an entertaining read after having Google
translate the site for me.
http://tinyurl.com/245tmws
- Sean
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Sean Martin seanmarti...@gmail.com
wrote:
Michael,
The command you provided worked perfectly, thanks so much!
- Sean
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Michael B. Smith
mich...@smithcons.com wrote:
So? Does logparser work for you otherwise?
LogParser.exe -i:W3C -o:TSV select TO_TIMESTAMP( STRCAT( '2010-09-10',
STRCAT(' ', STRREV( SUB( STRREV( TIME ) , 'TMG ') ))),'-MM-dd
h:m:s') AS DateTime, Recipient-Address AS RcptAddress, MSGID,
Number-Recipients AS NumRcpts, Message-Subject AS Subject,
Sender-Address AS Sender from 20100812.log to myfile.tab GROUP BY
DateTime, MSGID, Recipient-Address, Number-Recipients, Message-Subject,
Sender-Address -filemode:0
Regards,
Michael B. Smith
Consultant and Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/
From: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:42 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: LogParser and Message Tracking
Yes, it is enabled. I can find the subject in various logs manually,
just trying to figure why logparser wont find it.
On Aug 11, 2010, at 4:34 PM, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.com
wrote:
Well, the number one question I have is whether you have
subject logging turned on for that Exchange server...
Regards,
Michael B. Smith
Consultant and Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com
http://theessentialexchange.com/
From: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 4:12 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: LogParser and Message Tracking
Hello all,
I'm trying to use log parser against my Exchange 2003 Message
Tracking logs to gather some data. Initially, I'm just trying to count
the number of e-mail messages with a specific subject line.
I'm running the following command against a log that I know
contains messages with the subject in question, however my results are
returning 0 instances. Here's the command I'm running:
logparser.exe -i:W3C SELECT * FROM '\\ServerName\Path\LogName'
WHERE Message-Subject like'ExampleSubject' -O:CSV c:\test.csv
I'm actually calling this from another batch script so that I
can pass the log name as a variable, since my goal is to search all
logs. I've also tried specifying a single log file name that I know
contains what I'm looking for.
Ultimately I'd like to capture the sender and recipient
information for all messages sent with a specific subject, but I think I
need to at least get an idea of how many messages I'm dealing with.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
- Sean
Database Limits
Today the drive that houses the log files for Exchange Sp2 Standard filled up. After running a backup, clearing the files, and rebooting mail was flowing again. However, I am now seeing messages that we are past the 250gb database size limit. From what I have Googled, Ex07, with SP1 has a 250 GB limit. But if you remove the Reg Key, this removes the limit. So far, the DB has not dismounted. I checked, and neither DB has the reg key listed. Is this true? Do I need to worry about the DB discounting?
RE: Database Limits
I thought the default warning was at 25 and not 250; but I'm not 100% on that. 250 seems really really high. If you are going to run higher than the default - put the key in. You are seeing a default value warning. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Chris Blair [mailto:chris_bl...@identisys.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Database Limits Today the drive that houses the log files for Exchange Sp2 Standard filled up. After running a backup, clearing the files, and rebooting mail was flowing again. However, I am now seeing messages that we are past the 250gb database size limit. From what I have Googled, Ex07, with SP1 has a 250 GB limit. But if you remove the Reg Key, this removes the limit. So far, the DB has not dismounted. I checked, and neither DB has the reg key listed. Is this true? Do I need to worry about the DB discounting?
RE: Uninstall Exchange 2000
I got that far, LOL The user account I'm using is a member of the Exchange Full Admins group, a local admin on the machine and a domain admin. What else do I need? Steve Hart Network Administrator 503.491.4343 -Direct | 503.492.8160 - Fax From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 5:08 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Uninstall Exchange 2000 Well, this seems to indicate that the user who is doing the uninstall doesn't have sufficient permission to do that: [17:10:24] Interpreting line OpenMachineKey:SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\EventLog\Application [17:10:24] CInsParser::ScProcessLine (K:\admin\src\libs\exsetup\hiddenw1.cxx:1226) Error code 0XC0070005 (5): Access is denied Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Steve Hart [mailto:sh...@wrightbg.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 7:56 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Uninstall Exchange 2000 I've been struggling with uninstalling our last E2000 server for some time. I've been through the entire process outlined for removing the last legacy Exchange server and I've reached the step of uninstalling Exchange. I've been getting Access denied error messages when the uninstall attempts to remove registry entries. Here's a relevant portion of the setup logs. Ideas?? The operation has completed successfully. [17:10:23] Entering CBaseComponent::ScSetup [17:10:23] Beginning Remove of Microsoft Exchange Instant Messaging Service component [17:10:23] Beginning Remove of Services Atom sub-component [17:10:23] Entering CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Entering CAtomServices::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Entering CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Leaving CAtomServices::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Entering CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Entering CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemoveRegistryKeys [17:10:23] Removing registry entries for Services Atom [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemoveRegistryKeys [17:10:23] Removing Active Directory objects for Services Atom [17:10:23] Entering CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemoveShortcuts [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemoveShortcuts [17:10:23] Removing IIS Metabase objects for Services Atom [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Entering CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScDeleteAtomServices [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScDeleteAtomServices [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Completed Remove of Services Atom sub-component [17:10:23] Beginning Remove of Instant Messaging Service sub-component [17:10:23] Entering CBaseServiceAtom(Instant Messaging Service)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Entering CBaseServiceAtom(Instant Messaging Service)::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseServiceAtom(Instant Messaging Service)::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Entering CBaseAtom(Instant Messaging Service)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Entering CBaseAtom(Instant Messaging Service)::ScRemoveRegistryKeys [17:10:23] Removing registry entries for Instant Messaging Service [17:10:23] Entering CRegistryManager::ScProcessFile [17:10:23] Starting interpreter on file e:\exchan~1\setup\i386\exchange\im.uns [17:10:23] Interpreting line CreateProcessSafe:C:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\bin;regsvr32 /u /s msimcfg.dll;18 [17:10:23] Process created ... waiting (18) [17:10:24] Ignoring exit code [17:10:24] Interpreting line CreateProcessSafe:.;unlodctr MSExchangeIM;18 [17:10:24] Process created ... waiting (18) [17:10:24] Ignoring exit code 0x0003f2 [17:10:24] Interpreting line OpenMachineKey:SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\EventLog\Application [17:10:24] CInsParser::ScProcessLine (K:\admin\src\libs\exsetup\hiddenw1.cxx:1226) Error code 0XC0070005 (5): Access is denied. [17:10:24] Processing file 'e:\exchan~1\setup\i386\exchange\im.uns', at or near line 5 (OpenMachineKey:SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\EventLog\Application) CInsParser::ScProcessLine (K:\admin\src\libs\exsetup\hiddenw1.cxx:486) Error code 0XC0070005 (5): Access is denied. [17:10:24] Registry file name: 'e:\exchan~1\setup\i386\exchange\im.uns' CRegistryManager::ScProcessFile (K:\admin\src\udog\setupbase\tools\regmgr.cxx:95) Error code 0XC0070005 (5): Access is denied. [17:10:24] Filename = '%sourcedir%\im' CBaseAtom::ScRemoveRegistryKeys (K:\admin\src\udog\setupbase\basecomp\baseatom.cxx:1272) Error code 0XC0070005 (5): Access is denied. [17:10:24] CBaseAtom::ScRemove (K:\admin\src\udog\setupbase\basecomp\baseatom.cxx:958) Error code 0XC0070005 (5): Access is denied. [17:10:24] Service = '' CBaseServiceAtom::ScRemove
RE: Uninstall Exchange 2000
You need to look at the permissions on the key in regedit. If I were to guess, it's looking for SYSTEM. Just add the user, FC, and see if you get any further. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Steve Hart [mailto:sh...@wrightbg.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:55 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Uninstall Exchange 2000 I got that far, LOL The user account I'm using is a member of the Exchange Full Admins group, a local admin on the machine and a domain admin. What else do I need? Steve Hart Network Administrator 503.491.4343 -Direct | 503.492.8160 - Fax From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 5:08 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Uninstall Exchange 2000 Well, this seems to indicate that the user who is doing the uninstall doesn't have sufficient permission to do that: [17:10:24] Interpreting line OpenMachineKey:SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\EventLog\Application [17:10:24] CInsParser::ScProcessLine (K:\admin\src\libs\exsetup\hiddenw1.cxx:1226) Error code 0XC0070005 (5): Access is denied Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Steve Hart [mailto:sh...@wrightbg.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 7:56 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Uninstall Exchange 2000 I've been struggling with uninstalling our last E2000 server for some time. I've been through the entire process outlined for removing the last legacy Exchange server and I've reached the step of uninstalling Exchange. I've been getting Access denied error messages when the uninstall attempts to remove registry entries. Here's a relevant portion of the setup logs. Ideas?? The operation has completed successfully. [17:10:23] Entering CBaseComponent::ScSetup [17:10:23] Beginning Remove of Microsoft Exchange Instant Messaging Service component [17:10:23] Beginning Remove of Services Atom sub-component [17:10:23] Entering CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Entering CAtomServices::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Entering CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Leaving CAtomServices::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Entering CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Entering CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemoveRegistryKeys [17:10:23] Removing registry entries for Services Atom [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemoveRegistryKeys [17:10:23] Removing Active Directory objects for Services Atom [17:10:23] Entering CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemoveShortcuts [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemoveShortcuts [17:10:23] Removing IIS Metabase objects for Services Atom [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Entering CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScDeleteAtomServices [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScDeleteAtomServices [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Completed Remove of Services Atom sub-component [17:10:23] Beginning Remove of Instant Messaging Service sub-component [17:10:23] Entering CBaseServiceAtom(Instant Messaging Service)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Entering CBaseServiceAtom(Instant Messaging Service)::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseServiceAtom(Instant Messaging Service)::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Entering CBaseAtom(Instant Messaging Service)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Entering CBaseAtom(Instant Messaging Service)::ScRemoveRegistryKeys [17:10:23] Removing registry entries for Instant Messaging Service [17:10:23] Entering CRegistryManager::ScProcessFile [17:10:23] Starting interpreter on file e:\exchan~1\setup\i386\exchange\im.uns [17:10:23] Interpreting line CreateProcessSafe:C:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\bin;regsvr32 /u /s msimcfg.dll;18 [17:10:23] Process created ... waiting (18) [17:10:24] Ignoring exit code [17:10:24] Interpreting line CreateProcessSafe:.;unlodctr MSExchangeIM;18 [17:10:24] Process created ... waiting (18) [17:10:24] Ignoring exit code 0x0003f2 [17:10:24] Interpreting line OpenMachineKey:SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\EventLog\Application [17:10:24] CInsParser::ScProcessLine (K:\admin\src\libs\exsetup\hiddenw1.cxx:1226) Error code 0XC0070005 (5): Access is denied. [17:10:24] Processing file 'e:\exchan~1\setup\i386\exchange\im.uns', at or near line 5 (OpenMachineKey:SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\EventLog\Application) CInsParser::ScProcessLine (K:\admin\src\libs\exsetup\hiddenw1.cxx:486) Error code 0XC0070005 (5): Access is denied. [17:10:24] Registry file name: 'e:\exchan~1\setup\i386\exchange\im.uns' CRegistryManager::ScProcessFile (K:\admin\src\udog\setupbase\tools\regmgr.cxx:95) Error code 0XC0070005 (5): Access is denied. [17:10:24] Filename =
Re: Email texting to ATT cell phones
I have found email-to-sms to be infrequently, yet sporadically unreliable across all carriers. I would not rely on it for anything critical. -- ME2 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Louis, Joe jlo...@guardianalarm.comwrote: Anyone having problems sending an email to an ATT cell phone as an SMS (via email address xxx-xxx-x...@text.att.net)? All of a sudden, our messages are not reaching our cell phones. This just affects our ATT phones. Some customer service person at ATT told our people that they are transitioning people away from email messages to cell phones as text. We pay for an SMS package. I’m clueless as to why they would care about the source when we pay for the SMS volume. Anyone else experiencing this? How are you generating SMS messages to non-mobile-email-enable devices? We’ve always preached that SMS is not a guaranteed service/delivery so time sensitive needs shouldn’t be pushed there, but we’re going to have to come up with another deployment if ATT sticks to their guns. -Joe Louis
Re: Email texting to ATT cell phones
What would you use? On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:56, Micheal Espinola Jr michealespin...@gmail.com wrote: I have found email-to-sms to be infrequently, yet sporadically unreliable across all carriers. I would not rely on it for anything critical. -- ME2 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Louis, Joe jlo...@guardianalarm.com wrote: Anyone having problems sending an email to an ATT cell phone as an SMS (via email address xxx-xxx-x...@text.att.net)? All of a sudden, our messages are not reaching our cell phones. This just affects our ATT phones. Some customer service person at ATT told our people that they are transitioning people away from email messages to cell phones as text. We pay for an SMS package. I’m clueless as to why they would care about the source when we pay for the SMS volume. Anyone else experiencing this? How are you generating SMS messages to non-mobile-email-enable devices? We’ve always preached that SMS is not a guaranteed service/delivery so time sensitive needs shouldn’t be pushed there, but we’re going to have to come up with another deployment if ATT sticks to their guns. -Joe Louis
RE: Database Limits
It was 50gb soft limit in RTM, and then increased to 250gb in SP1. With Exchange 2010, it looks like they have gone back to an initial soft limit of 50gb! Simon. -- Simon Butler MVP: Exchange, MCSE Sembee Ltd. e: si...@sembee.co.uk w: http://www.sembee.co.uk/ w: http://www.amset.info/ w: http://blog.sembee.co.uk/ Need cheap certificates for Exchange, compatible with Windows Mobile 5.0? http://CertificatesForExchange.com/http://certificatesforexchange.com/ for certificates from just $23.99. Need a domain for your certificate? http://DomainsForExchange.net/http://domainsforexchange.net/ Exchange Resources: http://exbpa.com/ From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: 12 August 2010 18:14 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Database Limits I thought the default warning was at 25 and not 250; but I'm not 100% on that. 250 seems really really high. If you are going to run higher than the default - put the key in. You are seeing a default value warning. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Chris Blair [mailto:chris_bl...@identisys.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Database Limits Today the drive that houses the log files for Exchange Sp2 Standard filled up. After running a backup, clearing the files, and rebooting mail was flowing again. However, I am now seeing messages that we are past the 250gb database size limit. From what I have Googled, Ex07, with SP1 has a 250 GB limit. But if you remove the Reg Key, this removes the limit. So far, the DB has not dismounted. I checked, and neither DB has the reg key listed. Is this true? Do I need to worry about the DB discounting?
Log Drive Full
I thought I had gotten passed this, but the backup failed. The backup is failing becauase the mail DB cannot be mounted, because the log drive is full. What is my next step to purge these log files? I tried moving them, but the wizard hung at validating the paths.
RE: Log Drive Full
Right click on about a thousand of them (BE SURE YOU ONLY HAVE NORMAL LOG FILES) and compress them. Normally, this is a really really bad idea - but it's the easiest way to get past your problem. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Chris Blair [mailto:chris_bl...@identisys.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:00 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Log Drive Full I thought I had gotten passed this, but the backup failed. The backup is failing becauase the mail DB cannot be mounted, because the log drive is full. What is my next step to purge these log files? I tried moving them, but the wizard hung at validating the paths.
RE: Log Drive Full
Not sure what you mean by NORMAL LOG FILES. Can you explain?
RE: Log Drive Full
Such as, don't select the EDB file or *.jrs files or E00tmp.log etc. etc. The valid log file format is Enn.log Where nn is 00 - 99. And is a hexadecimal number. So, E000964.log is a normal log file, but E00.log and E00tmp.log and E00res1.jrs are not. Make sense? Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Chris Blair [mailto:chris_bl...@identisys.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:23 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Log Drive Full Not sure what you mean by NORMAL LOG FILES. Can you explain?
RE: Log Drive Full
Yes. I am trying to compress now.
Any SPF Wizzes Out There?
I've never had a problem with mail from us being rejected by a recipient using SPF until today. And naturally, it's the Florida Auditor General's office that's rejecting it-so it's kind of important to get it fixed. We use Google/Postini, so all of our mail is routed through them. Below my sig are the results I got when I sent a message to spf-t...@openspf.orgmailto:spf-t...@openspf.org. The message passed the Mail-From test, but got none for the HELO result. I don't know much about this, but my understanding is that this result can be pass, fail, or none. I'm thinking that perhaps our lack of a pass here is what's causing our mail to be rejected by the AG's servers, but I have no idea how to fix it. Any suggestions? John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District www.taylor.k12.fl.us Generating server: Exchange-Edge.taylor.k12.fl.us spf-t...@openspf.orgmailto:spf-t...@openspf.org Postini #550 5.7.1 spf-t...@openspf.orgmailto:spf-t...@openspf.org: Recipient address rejected: SPF Tests: Mail-From Result=pass: Mail From=john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.usmailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us HELO name=na3sys009aog113.obsmtp.com HELO Result=none Remote IP=74.125.149.209 ## Original message headers: Received: from Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.us (10.11.1.25) by Exchange-Edge.taylor.k12.fl.us (10.11.1.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:32 -0400 Received: from Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.us ([2002:96b0:25ac::96b0:25ac]) by Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.us ([2002:96b0:25ac::96b0:25ac]) with mapi; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:32 -0400 From: John Hornbuckle john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.usmailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us To: spf-t...@openspf.orgmailto:spf-t...@openspf.org spf-t...@openspf.orgmailto:spf-t...@openspf.org Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:31 -0400 Subject: Thread-Index: Acs6Tq32q3GCr+z8TcK9J2xj/mXdNA== Message-ID: e4f47298c1dd67478772ed46f048b6be076ce00...@exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.usmailto:e4f47298c1dd67478772ed46f048b6be076ce00...@exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_000_E4F47298C1DD67478772ED46F048B6BE076CE001E0ExchangeCoret_ MIME-Version: 1.0 Return-Path: john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.usmailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us NOTICE: Florida has a broad public records law. Most written communications to or from this entity are public records that will be disclosed to the public and the media upon request. E-mail communications may be subject to public disclosure.
RE: Log Drive Full
Why couldn't he delete old files instead of compress? IIRC Symantec's BackUp Exec will do that if you have the Exchange agent installed plus a couple of config changes to backup exec. I am talking about Ex2007, though. I'm not sure about other versions. From: mich...@smithcons.com To: exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: RE: Log Drive Full Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:25:54 + Such as, don't select the EDB file or *.jrs files or E00tmp.log etc. etc. The valid log file format is Enn.log Where nn is 00 - 99. And is a hexadecimal number. So, E000964.log is a normal log file, but E00.log and E00tmp.log and E00res1.jrs are not. Make sense? Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Chris Blair [mailto:chris_bl...@identisys.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:23 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Log Drive Full Not sure what you mean by NORMAL LOG FILES. Can you explain?
RE: Log Drive Full
You can do that IF AND ONLY IF you know exactly which log files are required to remount the Exchange database. It's a whole lot easier to tell someone how to compress files than it is to tell them how to determine which log files they need to remount the Exchange database. Besides which, at the time you remove the log files, you also lose point-in-time recovery of your Exchange database. That is, it is potentially a lossy recovery and may impact a company's RPO (Recovery Point Objective). I rarely, if ever, recommend a lossy recovery when there are other options still available. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: pdw1...@hotmail.com [mailto:pdw1...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Log Drive Full Why couldn't he delete old files instead of compress? IIRC Symantec's BackUp Exec will do that if you have the Exchange agent installed plus a couple of config changes to backup exec. I am talking about Ex2007, though. I'm not sure about other versions. From: mich...@smithcons.commailto:mich...@smithcons.com To: exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.commailto:exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: RE: Log Drive Full Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:25:54 + Such as, don't select the EDB file or *.jrs files or E00tmp.log etc. etc. The valid log file format is Enn.log Where nn is 00 - 99. And is a hexadecimal number. So, E000964.log is a normal log file, but E00.log and E00tmp.log and E00res1.jrs are not. Make sense? Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Chris Blair [mailto:chris_bl...@identisys.com]mailto:[mailto:chris_bl...@identisys.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:23 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Log Drive Full Not sure what you mean by NORMAL LOG FILES. Can you explain?
RE: Any SPF Wizzes Out There?
Hmmm I just tried sending a message to spf-t...@openspf.orgmailto:spf-t...@openspf.org and got the same result. I know my spf records are good. CFee From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:31 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Any SPF Wizzes Out There? I've never had a problem with mail from us being rejected by a recipient using SPF until today. And naturally, it's the Florida Auditor General's office that's rejecting it-so it's kind of important to get it fixed. We use Google/Postini, so all of our mail is routed through them. Below my sig are the results I got when I sent a message to spf-t...@openspf.orgmailto:spf-t...@openspf.org. The message passed the Mail-From test, but got none for the HELO result. I don't know much about this, but my understanding is that this result can be pass, fail, or none. I'm thinking that perhaps our lack of a pass here is what's causing our mail to be rejected by the AG's servers, but I have no idea how to fix it. Any suggestions? John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District www.taylor.k12.fl.us Generating server: Exchange-Edge.taylor.k12.fl.us spf-t...@openspf.orgmailto:spf-t...@openspf.org Postini #550 5.7.1 spf-t...@openspf.orgmailto:spf-t...@openspf.org: Recipient address rejected: SPF Tests: Mail-From Result=pass: Mail From=john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.usmailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us HELO name=na3sys009aog113.obsmtp.com HELO Result=none Remote IP=74.125.149.209 ## Original message headers: Received: from Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.us (10.11.1.25) by Exchange-Edge.taylor.k12.fl.us (10.11.1.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:32 -0400 Received: from Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.us ([2002:96b0:25ac::96b0:25ac]) by Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.us ([2002:96b0:25ac::96b0:25ac]) with mapi; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:32 -0400 From: John Hornbuckle john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.usmailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us To: spf-t...@openspf.orgmailto:spf-t...@openspf.org spf-t...@openspf.orgmailto:spf-t...@openspf.org Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:31 -0400 Subject: Thread-Index: Acs6Tq32q3GCr+z8TcK9J2xj/mXdNA== Message-ID: e4f47298c1dd67478772ed46f048b6be076ce00...@exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.usmailto:e4f47298c1dd67478772ed46f048b6be076ce00...@exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_000_E4F47298C1DD67478772ED46F048B6BE076CE001E0ExchangeCoret_ MIME-Version: 1.0 Return-Path: john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.usmailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us NOTICE: Florida has a broad public records law. Most written communications to or from this entity are public records that will be disclosed to the public and the media upon request. E-mail communications may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Any SPF Wizzes Out There?
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:30 PM, John Hornbuckle john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us wrote: And naturally, it’s the Florida Auditor General’s office that’s rejecting it—so it’s kind of important to get it fixed. Have you tried contacting the destination and asking them why they are rejecting you? spf-t...@openspf.org Postini #550 5.7.1 spf-t...@openspf.org: Recipient address rejected: SPF Tests: Mail-From Result=pass: Mail From=john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us HELO name=na3sys009aog113.obsmtp.com HELO Result=none Remote IP=74.125.149.209 ## My *guess* (and I emphasize guess) is that when your outgoing MX (which I guess is actually Postini) connected to the destination (the AG's office), it opened the SMTP transaction by giving the name na3sys009aog113.obsmtp.com. For example, with the SMTP command: HELO na3sys009aog113.obsmtp.com For me, that name resolves to 74.125.149.209, which matches the IP address in the above. However, if I try to connect to that IP address on TCP/25, the TCP connection never comes up. I presume it's an outbound only configuration, and any incoming connection attempts are silently dropped at the network layer. Perhaps something is attempting to verify that the HELO name given actually leads back to an MX which identifies itself by that name. Since the connection is never made, it can't say one way or the other; hence none. -- Ben
RE: Any SPF Wizzes Out There?
Yeah, I've talked to their admin. He's sort of like me--Jack of all trades, master of none. Doesn't seem to know much more about SPF than I do, so he's not able to determine specifically why they're blocking us. He turned SPF filtering off temporarily, and our mail to him got right through--so it's definitely tied to SPF filtering somehow. I think their end is Exchange 2003. By your description, the none may not be a problem. -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:48 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Any SPF Wizzes Out There? On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:30 PM, John Hornbuckle john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us wrote: And naturally, it's the Florida Auditor General's office that's rejecting it-so it's kind of important to get it fixed. Have you tried contacting the destination and asking them why they are rejecting you? spf-t...@openspf.org Postini #550 5.7.1 spf-t...@openspf.org: Recipient address rejected: SPF Tests: Mail-From Result=pass: Mail From=john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us HELO name=na3sys009aog113.obsmtp.com HELO Result=none Remote IP=74.125.149.209 ## My *guess* (and I emphasize guess) is that when your outgoing MX (which I guess is actually Postini) connected to the destination (the AG's office), it opened the SMTP transaction by giving the name na3sys009aog113.obsmtp.com. For example, with the SMTP command: HELO na3sys009aog113.obsmtp.com For me, that name resolves to 74.125.149.209, which matches the IP address in the above. However, if I try to connect to that IP address on TCP/25, the TCP connection never comes up. I presume it's an outbound only configuration, and any incoming connection attempts are silently dropped at the network layer. Perhaps something is attempting to verify that the HELO name given actually leads back to an MX which identifies itself by that name. Since the connection is never made, it can't say one way or the other; hence none. -- Ben NOTICE: Florida has a broad public records law. Most written communications to or from this entity are public records that will be disclosed to the public and the media upon request. E-mail communications may be subject to public disclosure.
RE: Any SPF Wizzes Out There?
So the none may not be the issue. But I'm not sure what is. From: Carol Fee [mailto:c...@massbar.org] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:45 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Any SPF Wizzes Out There? Hmmm I just tried sending a message to spf-t...@openspf.orgmailto:spf-t...@openspf.org and got the same result. I know my spf records are good. CFee From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:31 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Any SPF Wizzes Out There? I've never had a problem with mail from us being rejected by a recipient using SPF until today. And naturally, it's the Florida Auditor General's office that's rejecting it-so it's kind of important to get it fixed. We use Google/Postini, so all of our mail is routed through them. Below my sig are the results I got when I sent a message to spf-t...@openspf.orgmailto:spf-t...@openspf.org. The message passed the Mail-From test, but got none for the HELO result. I don't know much about this, but my understanding is that this result can be pass, fail, or none. I'm thinking that perhaps our lack of a pass here is what's causing our mail to be rejected by the AG's servers, but I have no idea how to fix it. Any suggestions? John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District www.taylor.k12.fl.us Generating server: Exchange-Edge.taylor.k12.fl.us spf-t...@openspf.orgmailto:spf-t...@openspf.org Postini #550 5.7.1 spf-t...@openspf.orgmailto:spf-t...@openspf.org: Recipient address rejected: SPF Tests: Mail-From Result=pass: Mail From=john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.usmailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us HELO name=na3sys009aog113.obsmtp.com HELO Result=none Remote IP=74.125.149.209 ## Original message headers: Received: from Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.us (10.11.1.25) by Exchange-Edge.taylor.k12.fl.us (10.11.1.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:32 -0400 Received: from Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.us ([2002:96b0:25ac::96b0:25ac]) by Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.us ([2002:96b0:25ac::96b0:25ac]) with mapi; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:32 -0400 From: John Hornbuckle john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.usmailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us To: spf-t...@openspf.orgmailto:spf-t...@openspf.org spf-t...@openspf.orgmailto:spf-t...@openspf.org Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:31 -0400 Subject: Thread-Index: Acs6Tq32q3GCr+z8TcK9J2xj/mXdNA== Message-ID: e4f47298c1dd67478772ed46f048b6be076ce00...@exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.usmailto:e4f47298c1dd67478772ed46f048b6be076ce00...@exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_000_E4F47298C1DD67478772ED46F048B6BE076CE001E0ExchangeCoret_ MIME-Version: 1.0 Return-Path: john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.usmailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us NOTICE: Florida has a broad public records law. Most written communications to or from this entity are public records that will be disclosed to the public and the media upon request. E-mail communications may be subject to public disclosure. NOTICE: Florida has a broad public records law. Most written communications to or from this entity are public records that will be disclosed to the public and the media upon request. E-mail communications may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Log Drive Full
Could he not use eseutil to verify the shutdown state of the store, and if clean, simply move the log files to a different directory (providing space is available) and then re-mount the store? Assuming Exch 2003 (I didn't see the version mentioned in the thread). eseutil /mh path to store - Sean On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.comwrote: You can do that IF AND ONLY IF you know exactly which log files are required to remount the Exchange database. It’s a whole lot easier to tell someone how to compress files than it is to tell them how to determine which log files they need to remount the Exchange database. Besides which, at the time you remove the log files, you also lose point-in-time recovery of your Exchange database. That is, it is potentially a lossy recovery and may impact a company’s RPO (Recovery Point Objective). I rarely, if ever, recommend a lossy recovery when there are other options still available. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ *From:* pdw1...@hotmail.com [mailto:pdw1...@hotmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:32 PM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Log Drive Full Why couldn't he delete old files instead of compress? IIRC Symantec's BackUp Exec will do that if you have the Exchange agent installed plus a couple of config changes to backup exec. I am talking about Ex2007, though. I'm not sure about other versions. From: mich...@smithcons.com To: exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: RE: Log Drive Full Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:25:54 + Such as, don't select the EDB file or *.jrs files or E00tmp.log etc. etc. The valid log file format is Enn.log Where nn is 00 - 99. And is a hexadecimal number. So, E000964.log is a normal log file, but E00.log and E00tmp.log and E00res1.jrs are not. Make sense? Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ -Original Message- From: Chris Blair [mailto:chris_bl...@identisys.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:23 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Log Drive Full Not sure what you mean by NORMAL LOG FILES. Can you explain?
RE: Log Drive Full
Michael, I appreciate your help. I tried to compress the files, but there is not enough disk space to do it. I rebooted the server, and trying to move the logs files to a different drive with enough space. It has been running for 20 minutes, and so far nothing, but there are 50k+ to move. If this doesn't start moving files in the next 30 minutes, I plan on calling PSS.
RE: Log Drive Full
He already said he had a forced shutdown due to lack of diskspace. It won't be clean. But sure, if it were clean, that would work. But again - it's easier to tell someone to compress than figure all that out. IMHO. :) Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 4:13 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Log Drive Full Could he not use eseutil to verify the shutdown state of the store, and if clean, simply move the log files to a different directory (providing space is available) and then re-mount the store? Assuming Exch 2003 (I didn't see the version mentioned in the thread). eseutil /mh path to store - Sean On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.commailto:mich...@smithcons.com wrote: You can do that IF AND ONLY IF you know exactly which log files are required to remount the Exchange database. It's a whole lot easier to tell someone how to compress files than it is to tell them how to determine which log files they need to remount the Exchange database. Besides which, at the time you remove the log files, you also lose point-in-time recovery of your Exchange database. That is, it is potentially a lossy recovery and may impact a company's RPO (Recovery Point Objective). I rarely, if ever, recommend a lossy recovery when there are other options still available. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.comhttp://theessentialexchange.com/ From: pdw1...@hotmail.commailto:pdw1...@hotmail.com [mailto:pdw1...@hotmail.commailto:pdw1...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Log Drive Full Why couldn't he delete old files instead of compress? IIRC Symantec's BackUp Exec will do that if you have the Exchange agent installed plus a couple of config changes to backup exec. I am talking about Ex2007, though. I'm not sure about other versions. From: mich...@smithcons.commailto:mich...@smithcons.com To: exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.commailto:exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: RE: Log Drive Full Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:25:54 + Such as, don't select the EDB file or *.jrs files or E00tmp.log etc. etc. The valid log file format is Enn.log Where nn is 00 - 99. And is a hexadecimal number. So, E000964.log is a normal log file, but E00.log and E00tmp.log and E00res1.jrs are not. Make sense? Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.comhttp://theessentialexchange.com/ -Original Message- From: Chris Blair [mailto:chris_bl...@identisys.com]mailto:[mailto:chris_bl...@identisys.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:23 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Log Drive Full Not sure what you mean by NORMAL LOG FILES. Can you explain?
RE: Log Drive Full
You've seen other people's options here, but I wouldn't try to move all 50K files. I would move like a hundred. Then you should have space to compress a hundred. Once you've compressed that first hundred, you can compress another hundred, etc. etc. That's the way I would proceed, but YMMV. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Chris Blair [mailto:chris_bl...@identisys.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 4:14 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Log Drive Full Michael, I appreciate your help. I tried to compress the files, but there is not enough disk space to do it. I rebooted the server, and trying to move the logs files to a different drive with enough space. It has been running for 20 minutes, and so far nothing, but there are 50k+ to move. If this doesn't start moving files in the next 30 minutes, I plan on calling PSS.
Re: Log Drive Full
It'll be a wasted call, for the moment. You won't get any better advice out of PSS than you're getting here. First - what are you using to compress the files? Are you using the built-in compression for Windows, or are you using winzip/7zip/some other 3rd party compression/archiving tool? Kurt On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 13:14, Chris Blair chris_bl...@identisys.com wrote: Michael, I appreciate your help. I tried to compress the files, but there is not enough disk space to do it. I rebooted the server, and trying to move the logs files to a different drive with enough space. It has been running for 20 minutes, and so far nothing, but there are 50k+ to move. If this doesn't start moving files in the next 30 minutes, I plan on calling PSS.
Re: Email texting to ATT cell phones
If it was mission critical, an SMS gateway. SMTP is great, but we know it has its flaws. I swear I think Verizon and ATT do things to disrupt misuse of thier services. I had a plethora of horrible experiences in the Boston area with an email-to-SMS system. Direct SMS and paging services are more reliable in my experience. -- ME2 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote: What would you use? On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:56, Micheal Espinola Jr michealespin...@gmail.com wrote: I have found email-to-sms to be infrequently, yet sporadically unreliable across all carriers. I would not rely on it for anything critical. -- ME2 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Louis, Joe jlo...@guardianalarm.com wrote: Anyone having problems sending an email to an ATT cell phone as an SMS (via email address xxx-xxx-x...@text.att.net)? All of a sudden, our messages are not reaching our cell phones. This just affects our ATT phones. Some customer service person at ATT told our people that they are transitioning people away from email messages to cell phones as text. We pay for an SMS package. I’m clueless as to why they would care about the source when we pay for the SMS volume. Anyone else experiencing this? How are you generating SMS messages to non-mobile-email-enable devices? We’ve always preached that SMS is not a guaranteed service/delivery so time sensitive needs shouldn’t be pushed there, but we’re going to have to come up with another deployment if ATT sticks to their guns. -Joe Louis
Re: Any SPF Wizzes Out There?
They should be - I created them! ;-) -- ME2 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Carol Fee c...@massbar.org wrote: Hmmm …. I just tried sending a message to spf-t...@openspf.org and got the same result. I know my spf records are good. *CFee* *From:* John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] *Sent:* Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:31 PM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* Any SPF Wizzes Out There? I’ve never had a problem with mail from us being rejected by a recipient using SPF until today. And naturally, it’s the Florida Auditor General’s office that’s rejecting it—so it’s kind of important to get it fixed. We use Google/Postini, so all of our mail is routed through them. Below my sig are the results I got when I sent a message to spf-t...@openspf.org. The message passed the Mail-From test, but got “none” for the HELO result. I don’t know much about this, but my understanding is that this result can be pass, fail, or none. I’m thinking that perhaps our lack of a “pass” here is what’s causing our mail to be rejected by the AG’s servers, but I have no idea how to fix it. Any suggestions? John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District www.taylor.k12.fl.us * * Generating server: Exchange-Edge.taylor.k12.fl.ushttp://exchange-edge.taylor.k12.fl.us/ spf-t...@openspf.org Postini #550 5.7.1 spf-t...@openspf.org: Recipient address rejected: SPF Tests: Mail-From Result=pass: Mail From= john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us HELO name=na3sys009aog113.obsmtp.com HELO Result=none Remote IP=74.125.149.209 ## Original message headers: Received: from Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.ushttp://exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us/(10.11.1.25) by Exchange-Edge.taylor.k12.fl.us http://exchange-edge.taylor.k12.fl.us/(10.11.1.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:32 -0400 Received: from Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.ushttp://exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us/([2002:96b0:25ac::96b0:25ac]) by Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.us http://exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us/([2002:96b0:25ac::96b0:25ac]) with mapi; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:32 -0400 From: John Hornbuckle john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us To: spf-t...@openspf.org spf-t...@openspf.org Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:31 -0400 Subject: Thread-Index: Acs6Tq32q3GCr+z8TcK9J2xj/mXdNA== Message-ID: e4f47298c1dd67478772ed46f048b6be076ce00...@exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_000_E4F47298C1DD67478772ED46F048B6BE076CE001E0ExchangeCoret_ MIME-Version: 1.0 Return-Path: john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us NOTICE: Florida has a broad public records law. Most written communications to or from this entity are public records that will be disclosed to the public and the media upon request. E-mail communications may be subject to public disclosure.
RE: Log Drive Full
Do what Michaels says, move 100 or so out to another drive, then compress 100, compress another 100, and so on, then when you have enough free space, copy back in the original 100 you moved, compress them, and re-start your backup. -Original Message- From: Chris Blair [mailto:chris_bl...@identisys.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Log Drive Full Windows built in compress
RE: Email texting to ATT cell phones (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: FOUO They have phones in Kentucky? J From: Bob Fronk [mailto:b...@btrfronk.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 12:18 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Email texting to ATT cell phones There is a widespread ATT outage in the Kentucky area with over 150 sites down. There is also a large Windstream outage in Georgia and Kentucky. I don't know if they are related. However, both are causing me a great deal of headache today. -- BF From: Louis, Joe [mailto:jlo...@guardianalarm.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 12:11 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Email texting to ATT cell phones Anyone having problems sending an email to an ATT cell phone as an SMS (via email address xxx-xxx-x...@text.att.net)? All of a sudden, our messages are not reaching our cell phones. This just affects our ATT phones. Some customer service person at ATT told our people that they are transitioning people away from email messages to cell phones as text. We pay for an SMS package. I'm clueless as to why they would care about the source when we pay for the SMS volume. Anyone else experiencing this? How are you generating SMS messages to non-mobile-email-enable devices? We've always preached that SMS is not a guaranteed service/delivery so time sensitive needs shouldn't be pushed there, but we're going to have to come up with another deployment if ATT sticks to their guns. -Joe Louis Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: FOUO
RE: Log Drive Full
Michael - My appologies, I wasn't and have never doubted your knowledge on Exchange. Just feeling in a bit over my head at the moment. I compressed about 5k files to free up about 750 megs. The backup has started. Crossing my fingers!
Re: Log Drive Full
Cool. I believe that's what MBS was getting at. If it were me, I'd move a few hundred of the latest log files to a different partition, then start compressing the oldest log files, a few hundred at a time, and when you have a bunch of them compressed (maybe a thousand or so) move the files back that you placed elsewhere, and keep going with your compression, until you have free disk space equal to some significant fraction of your total partition space - I'd guess about 10% free, but others will have a better answer on that exact number. At any rate, once that amount of free space is obtained, backups will work, and log files will disappear. This will take some time, but it's certainly a very clean way of getting this done. I definitely wouldn't highlight the log directory and compress the entire directory. - that will cause other problems. Stay the course. Kurt On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 13:41, Chris Blair chris_bl...@identisys.com wrote: Windows built in compress
Re: Log Drive Full
I had to stop the Exchange mail Submission service, because Exchange was creating new log files as soon as i mounted the DB for backup. Will this cause any additional problems?
Re: Any SPF Wizzes Out There?
You can try the link below for SPF wizard: http://old.openspf.org/wizard.html?mydomain= On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr michealespin...@gmail.com wrote: They should be - I created them! ;-) -- ME2 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Carol Fee c...@massbar.org wrote: Hmmm …. I just tried sending a message to spf-t...@openspf.org and got the same result. I know my spf records are good. *CFee* *From:* John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] *Sent:* Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:31 PM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* Any SPF Wizzes Out There? I’ve never had a problem with mail from us being rejected by a recipient using SPF until today. And naturally, it’s the Florida Auditor General’s office that’s rejecting it—so it’s kind of important to get it fixed. We use Google/Postini, so all of our mail is routed through them. Below my sig are the results I got when I sent a message to spf-t...@openspf.org. The message passed the Mail-From test, but got “none” for the HELO result. I don’t know much about this, but my understanding is that this result can be pass, fail, or none. I’m thinking that perhaps our lack of a “pass” here is what’s causing our mail to be rejected by the AG’s servers, but I have no idea how to fix it. Any suggestions? John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District www.taylor.k12.fl.us * * Generating server: Exchange-Edge.taylor.k12.fl.ushttp://exchange-edge.taylor.k12.fl.us/ spf-t...@openspf.org Postini #550 5.7.1 spf-t...@openspf.org: Recipient address rejected: SPF Tests: Mail-From Result=pass: Mail From= john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us HELO name=na3sys009aog113.obsmtp.com HELO Result=none Remote IP=74.125.149.209 ## Original message headers: Received: from Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.ushttp://exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us/(10.11.1.25) by Exchange-Edge.taylor.k12.fl.us http://exchange-edge.taylor.k12.fl.us/(10.11.1.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:32 -0400 Received: from Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.ushttp://exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us/([2002:96b0:25ac::96b0:25ac]) by Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.us http://exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us/([2002:96b0:25ac::96b0:25ac]) with mapi; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:32 -0400 From: John Hornbuckle john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us To: spf-t...@openspf.org spf-t...@openspf.org Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:31 -0400 Subject: Thread-Index: Acs6Tq32q3GCr+z8TcK9J2xj/mXdNA== Message-ID: e4f47298c1dd67478772ed46f048b6be076ce00...@exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_000_E4F47298C1DD67478772ED46F048B6BE076CE001E0ExchangeCoret_ MIME-Version: 1.0 Return-Path: john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us NOTICE: Florida has a broad public records law. Most written communications to or from this entity are public records that will be disclosed to the public and the media upon request. E-mail communications may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Log Drive Full
So 10% would be roughly 24-25GB free space. Far cry from the 750MB he has... I'm curious to know if there's a specific free space recommendation or requirement in this scenario. - Sean On Aug 12, 2010, at 12:55 PM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote: Cool. I believe that's what MBS was getting at. If it were me, I'd move a few hundred of the latest log files to a different partition, then start compressing the oldest log files, a few hundred at a time, and when you have a bunch of them compressed (maybe a thousand or so) move the files back that you placed elsewhere, and keep going with your compression, until you have free disk space equal to some significant fraction of your total partition space - I'd guess about 10% free, but others will have a better answer on that exact number. At any rate, once that amount of free space is obtained, backups will work, and log files will disappear. This will take some time, but it's certainly a very clean way of getting this done. I definitely wouldn't highlight the log directory and compress the entire directory. - that will cause other problems. Stay the course. Kurt On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 13:41, Chris Blair chris_bl...@identisys.com wrote: Windows built in compress
RE: Email texting to ATT cell phones (UNCLASSIFIED)
Not anymore. Steve Hart Network Administrator 503.491.4343 -Direct | 503.492.8160 - Fax From: Kent, Larry CTR US USA [mailto:larry.k...@us.army.mil] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:48 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Email texting to ATT cell phones (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: FOUO They have phones in Kentucky? :) From: Bob Fronk [mailto:b...@btrfronk.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 12:18 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Email texting to ATT cell phones There is a widespread ATT outage in the Kentucky area with over 150 sites down. There is also a large Windstream outage in Georgia and Kentucky. I don't know if they are related. However, both are causing me a great deal of headache today. -- BF From: Louis, Joe [mailto:jlo...@guardianalarm.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 12:11 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Email texting to ATT cell phones Anyone having problems sending an email to an ATT cell phone as an SMS (via email address xxx-xxx-x...@text.att.netblockedmailto:xxx-xxx-x...@text.att.net)? All of a sudden, our messages are not reaching our cell phones. This just affects our ATT phones. Some customer service person at ATT told our people that they are transitioning people away from email messages to cell phones as text. We pay for an SMS package. I'm clueless as to why they would care about the source when we pay for the SMS volume. Anyone else experiencing this? How are you generating SMS messages to non-mobile-email-enable devices? We've always preached that SMS is not a guaranteed service/delivery so time sensitive needs shouldn't be pushed there, but we're going to have to come up with another deployment if ATT sticks to their guns. -Joe Louis Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: FOUO
RE: Log Drive Full
No that's fine. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Chris Blair [mailto:chris_bl...@identisys.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:03 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Log Drive Full I had to stop the Exchange mail Submission service, because Exchange was creating new log files as soon as i mounted the DB for backup. Will this cause any additional problems?
RE: Log Drive Full
Good plan Kurt but, to add, if I may never move logs without first using eseutil /mk on the chk file to determine the check point and which logs can be moved safely. Save them in a safe place and then run the backup. The % free space is kind of a moving target as we don't know how much mail is received at any given time but 10% should get them into backup range, 15%+ better. M -Original Message- From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:55 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Log Drive Full Cool. I believe that's what MBS was getting at. If it were me, I'd move a few hundred of the latest log files to a different partition, then start compressing the oldest log files, a few hundred at a time, and when you have a bunch of them compressed (maybe a thousand or so) move the files back that you placed elsewhere, and keep going with your compression, until you have free disk space equal to some significant fraction of your total partition space - I'd guess about 10% free, but others will have a better answer on that exact number. At any rate, once that amount of free space is obtained, backups will work, and log files will disappear. This will take some time, but it's certainly a very clean way of getting this done. I definitely wouldn't highlight the log directory and compress the entire directory. - that will cause other problems. Stay the course. Kurt On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 13:41, Chris Blair chris_bl...@identisys.com wrote: Windows built in compress
RE: Log Drive Full
A minimum of 1 GB is recommended (and somewhat enforced with back pressure) starting with Exchange 2007. [[Note that back pressure is a lot more than that and blah blah blah. But you get the point.]] Exchange 2003 and before would just run and run until the disk was full. Oops. You need enough disk space to mount the database and allow it to process whatever changes (that is - generate additional log files) are required to perform the mount. That's going to generate a minimum of two log files (in 2007 and above; perhaps just one in 2003). It'll also start immediately processing the storeQ and the transportQ (unless the Transport service is stopped in 2007+ or the SMTP service in 2003 and before) which will generate more log files SoI'm a 10%-er minimum. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Log Drive Full So 10% would be roughly 24-25GB free space. Far cry from the 750MB he has... I'm curious to know if there's a specific free space recommendation or requirement in this scenario. - Sean On Aug 12, 2010, at 12:55 PM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote: Cool. I believe that's what MBS was getting at. If it were me, I'd move a few hundred of the latest log files to a different partition, then start compressing the oldest log files, a few hundred at a time, and when you have a bunch of them compressed (maybe a thousand or so) move the files back that you placed elsewhere, and keep going with your compression, until you have free disk space equal to some significant fraction of your total partition space - I'd guess about 10% free, but others will have a better answer on that exact number. At any rate, once that amount of free space is obtained, backups will work, and log files will disappear. This will take some time, but it's certainly a very clean way of getting this done. I definitely wouldn't highlight the log directory and compress the entire directory. - that will cause other problems. Stay the course. Kurt On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 13:41, Chris Blair chris_bl...@identisys.com wrote: Windows built in compress
Re: Log Drive Full
Yeah, but under my scheme, all log files would be present (with some or all of them compressed) before the backup starts, which I believe is different than what you're proposing - that is, starting backups with some logs missing. Kurt On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 14:18, Matt Moore mattmoore...@hotmail.com wrote: Good plan Kurt but, to add, if I may never move logs without first using eseutil /mk on the chk file to determine the check point and which logs can be moved safely. Save them in a safe place and then run the backup. The % free space is kind of a moving target as we don't know how much mail is received at any given time but 10% should get them into backup range, 15%+ better. M -Original Message- From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:55 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Log Drive Full Cool. I believe that's what MBS was getting at. If it were me, I'd move a few hundred of the latest log files to a different partition, then start compressing the oldest log files, a few hundred at a time, and when you have a bunch of them compressed (maybe a thousand or so) move the files back that you placed elsewhere, and keep going with your compression, until you have free disk space equal to some significant fraction of your total partition space - I'd guess about 10% free, but others will have a better answer on that exact number. At any rate, once that amount of free space is obtained, backups will work, and log files will disappear. This will take some time, but it's certainly a very clean way of getting this done. I definitely wouldn't highlight the log directory and compress the entire directory. - that will cause other problems. Stay the course. Kurt On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 13:41, Chris Blair chris_bl...@identisys.com wrote: Windows built in compress
Re: Log Drive Full
While the backup is running, I was looked at the dates on the log files. I generated 39k+ files since 12am today. I am making some registry changes to set thresholds per KB 972705 and see if it was a specific user.
Re: Log Drive Full
Thanks for the explanation Michael, that's good to know. - Sean On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.comwrote: A minimum of 1 GB is recommended (and somewhat enforced with back pressure) starting with Exchange 2007. [[Note that back pressure is a lot more than that and blah blah blah. But you get the point.]] Exchange 2003 and before would just run and run until the disk was full. Oops. You need enough disk space to mount the database and allow it to process whatever changes (that is - generate additional log files) are required to perform the mount. That's going to generate a minimum of two log files (in 2007 and above; perhaps just one in 2003). It'll also start immediately processing the storeQ and the transportQ (unless the Transport service is stopped in 2007+ or the SMTP service in 2003 and before) which will generate more log files SoI'm a 10%-er minimum. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ -Original Message- From: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Log Drive Full So 10% would be roughly 24-25GB free space. Far cry from the 750MB he has... I'm curious to know if there's a specific free space recommendation or requirement in this scenario. - Sean On Aug 12, 2010, at 12:55 PM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote: Cool. I believe that's what MBS was getting at. If it were me, I'd move a few hundred of the latest log files to a different partition, then start compressing the oldest log files, a few hundred at a time, and when you have a bunch of them compressed (maybe a thousand or so) move the files back that you placed elsewhere, and keep going with your compression, until you have free disk space equal to some significant fraction of your total partition space - I'd guess about 10% free, but others will have a better answer on that exact number. At any rate, once that amount of free space is obtained, backups will work, and log files will disappear. This will take some time, but it's certainly a very clean way of getting this done. I definitely wouldn't highlight the log directory and compress the entire directory. - that will cause other problems. Stay the course. Kurt On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 13:41, Chris Blair chris_bl...@identisys.com wrote: Windows built in compress
RE: Uninstall Exchange 2000
I assume this is in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE? The path listed in that error shows as a folder in regedit with dozens of subfolders and keys. Is there a way to pin down the culprit? Steve Hart Network Administrator 503.491.4343 -Direct | 503.492.8160 - Fax From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 10:57 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Uninstall Exchange 2000 You need to look at the permissions on the key in regedit. If I were to guess, it's looking for SYSTEM. Just add the user, FC, and see if you get any further. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Steve Hart [mailto:sh...@wrightbg.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:55 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Uninstall Exchange 2000 I got that far, LOL The user account I'm using is a member of the Exchange Full Admins group, a local admin on the machine and a domain admin. What else do I need? Steve Hart Network Administrator 503.491.4343 -Direct | 503.492.8160 - Fax From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 5:08 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Uninstall Exchange 2000 Well, this seems to indicate that the user who is doing the uninstall doesn't have sufficient permission to do that: [17:10:24] Interpreting line OpenMachineKey:SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\EventLog\Application [17:10:24] CInsParser::ScProcessLine (K:\admin\src\libs\exsetup\hiddenw1.cxx:1226) Error code 0XC0070005 (5): Access is denied Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Steve Hart [mailto:sh...@wrightbg.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 7:56 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Uninstall Exchange 2000 I've been struggling with uninstalling our last E2000 server for some time. I've been through the entire process outlined for removing the last legacy Exchange server and I've reached the step of uninstalling Exchange. I've been getting Access denied error messages when the uninstall attempts to remove registry entries. Here's a relevant portion of the setup logs. Ideas?? The operation has completed successfully. [17:10:23] Entering CBaseComponent::ScSetup [17:10:23] Beginning Remove of Microsoft Exchange Instant Messaging Service component [17:10:23] Beginning Remove of Services Atom sub-component [17:10:23] Entering CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Entering CAtomServices::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Entering CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Leaving CAtomServices::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Entering CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Entering CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemoveRegistryKeys [17:10:23] Removing registry entries for Services Atom [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemoveRegistryKeys [17:10:23] Removing Active Directory objects for Services Atom [17:10:23] Entering CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemoveShortcuts [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemoveShortcuts [17:10:23] Removing IIS Metabase objects for Services Atom [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Entering CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScDeleteAtomServices [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScDeleteAtomServices [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Completed Remove of Services Atom sub-component [17:10:23] Beginning Remove of Instant Messaging Service sub-component [17:10:23] Entering CBaseServiceAtom(Instant Messaging Service)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Entering CBaseServiceAtom(Instant Messaging Service)::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseServiceAtom(Instant Messaging Service)::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Entering CBaseAtom(Instant Messaging Service)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Entering CBaseAtom(Instant Messaging Service)::ScRemoveRegistryKeys [17:10:23] Removing registry entries for Instant Messaging Service [17:10:23] Entering CRegistryManager::ScProcessFile [17:10:23] Starting interpreter on file e:\exchan~1\setup\i386\exchange\im.uns [17:10:23] Interpreting line CreateProcessSafe:C:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\bin;regsvr32 /u /s msimcfg.dll;18 [17:10:23] Process created ... waiting (18) [17:10:24] Ignoring exit code [17:10:24] Interpreting line CreateProcessSafe:.;unlodctr MSExchangeIM;18 [17:10:24] Process created ... waiting (18) [17:10:24] Ignoring exit code 0x0003f2 [17:10:24] Interpreting line OpenMachineKey:SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\EventLog\Application [17:10:24] CInsParser::ScProcessLine (K:\admin\src\libs\exsetup\hiddenw1.cxx:1226) Error code 0XC0070005 (5): Access is denied. [17:10:24] Processing file 'e:\exchan~1\setup\i386\exchange\im.uns', at or near line
Re: Any SPF Wizzes Out There?
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:04 PM, John Hornbuckle john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us wrote: Yeah, I've talked to their admin. He's sort of like me--Jack of all trades, master of none. Doesn't seem to know much more about SPF than I do, so he's not able to determine specifically why they're blocking us. Eh, what? He doesn't know why his own systems are blocking you? facepalm By your description, the none may not be a problem. Hard to say. Some systems do check where mail is coming from, to see if the sending MX can also accept mail. While that seems like a reasonable thing to do, in practice large operators often have separate inbound vs outbound MXes, and there's nothing in the RFCs (that I'm aware of) which prohibits that. So if the magical gremlin which lives in the other admin's system (the one responsible for rejecting your mail) is doing such a check, it could be the source of trouble. Your SPF record certainly allows mail from the 74.125.149.209 IP address. That said, in a large system like Postini, there's no guarantee that outbound mail will consistently originate from the same IP address. I do note one irregularity in your SPF record. Your SPF record says, in part: mx mx:exchange-edge.taylor.k12.fl.us The mx directive means All the IP addresses associated with all the MX records associated with the given domain. If no domain is given, use the domain of the sender. So the first mx directive, with no domain given, looks at taylor.k12.fl.us., which is fine. There are MX records there. The second mx directive says to do an MX lookup on mx:exchange-edge.taylor.k12.fl.us.. There are no MX records associated with that domain. The only record appears to be an A record. SPF explicitly prohibits implicit MX, so that directive will never match. The SPF evaluation *should* move on to the next directive, but maybe someone's SPF implementation is stopping there. I presume what you meant by mx:exchange-edge.taylor.k12.fl.us is that your Exchange edge server is permitted to send mail. If so, the syntax should be a:exchange-edge.taylor.k12.fl.us (without the chevrons). The a directive means All the IP addresses associated with the given domain. You should probabbly fix that, even if it's not the cause of the current problem. -- Ben
Re: Any SPF Wizzes Out There?
I have a related question. Do you need a separate SPF record for each sending domain even if they're hosted within the same messaging environment? - Sean On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Chris Lin kan...@gmail.com wrote: You can try the link below for SPF wizard: http://old.openspf.org/wizard.html?mydomain= On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr michealespin...@gmail.com wrote: They should be - I created them! ;-) -- ME2 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Carol Fee c...@massbar.org wrote: Hmmm …. I just tried sending a message to spf-t...@openspf.org and got the same result. I know my spf records are good. *CFee* *From:* John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] *Sent:* Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:31 PM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* Any SPF Wizzes Out There? I’ve never had a problem with mail from us being rejected by a recipient using SPF until today. And naturally, it’s the Florida Auditor General’s office that’s rejecting it—so it’s kind of important to get it fixed. We use Google/Postini, so all of our mail is routed through them. Below my sig are the results I got when I sent a message to spf-t...@openspf.org. The message passed the Mail-From test, but got “none” for the HELO result. I don’t know much about this, but my understanding is that this result can be pass, fail, or none. I’m thinking that perhaps our lack of a “pass” here is what’s causing our mail to be rejected by the AG’s servers, but I have no idea how to fix it. Any suggestions? John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District www.taylor.k12.fl.us * * Generating server: Exchange-Edge.taylor.k12.fl.ushttp://exchange-edge.taylor.k12.fl.us/ spf-t...@openspf.org Postini #550 5.7.1 spf-t...@openspf.org: Recipient address rejected: SPF Tests: Mail-From Result=pass: Mail From= john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us HELO name=na3sys009aog113.obsmtp.com HELO Result=none Remote IP=74.125.149.209 ## Original message headers: Received: from Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.ushttp://exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us/(10.11.1.25) by Exchange-Edge.taylor.k12.fl.us http://exchange-edge.taylor.k12.fl.us/(10.11.1.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:32 -0400 Received: from Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.ushttp://exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us/([2002:96b0:25ac::96b0:25ac]) by Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.us http://exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us/([2002:96b0:25ac::96b0:25ac]) with mapi; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:32 -0400 From: John Hornbuckle john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us To: spf-t...@openspf.org spf-t...@openspf.org Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:31 -0400 Subject: Thread-Index: Acs6Tq32q3GCr+z8TcK9J2xj/mXdNA== Message-ID: e4f47298c1dd67478772ed46f048b6be076ce00...@exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_000_E4F47298C1DD67478772ED46F048B6BE076CE001E0ExchangeCoret_ MIME-Version: 1.0 Return-Path: john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us NOTICE: Florida has a broad public records law. Most written communications to or from this entity are public records that will be disclosed to the public and the media upon request. E-mail communications may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Uninstall Exchange 2000
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Steve Hart sh...@wrightbg.com wrote: The path listed in that error shows as a folder in regedit with dozens of subfolders and keys. Is there a way to pin down the culprit? In REGEDIT, registry keys are displayed as folders. So key==folder. The things that appear in the right pane are registry values. What are the permissions on the key in question? That is: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\EventLog\Application\ You can find out by right-clicking the folder icon for the key in question, and choosing Permissions. Chances are, the permissions on that key don't grant everything needed to the user account you're using to run the Exchange uninstaller. -- Ben
Re: Any SPF Wizzes Out There?
Yes. -- Sent using BlackBerry From: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 06:42 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: Re: Any SPF Wizzes Out There? I have a related question. Do you need a separate SPF record for each sending domain even if they're hosted within the same messaging environment? - Sean On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Chris Lin kan...@gmail.com wrote: You can try the link below for SPF wizard: http://old.openspf.org/wizard.html?mydomain= On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr michealespin...@gmail.com wrote: They should be - I created them! ;-) -- ME2 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Carol Fee c...@massbar.org wrote: Hmmm …. I just tried sending a message to spf-t...@openspf.org and got the same result. I know my spf records are good. CFee From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:31 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Any SPF Wizzes Out There? I’ve never had a problem with mail from us being rejected by a recipient using SPF until today. And naturally, it’s the Florida Auditor General’s office that’s rejecting it—so it’s kind of important to get it fixed. We use Google/Postini, so all of our mail is routed through them. Below my sig are the results I got when I sent a message to spf-t...@openspf.org. The message passed the Mail-From test, but got “none” for the HELO result. I don’t know much about this, but my understanding is that this result can be pass, fail, or none. I’m thinking that perhaps our lack of a “pass” here is what’s causing our mail to be rejected by the AG’s servers, but I have no idea how to fix it. Any suggestions? John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District www.taylor.k12.fl.us http://www.taylor.k12.fl.us/ Generating server: Exchange-Edge.taylor.k12.fl.us http://exchange-edge.taylor.k12.fl.us/ spf-t...@openspf.org Postini #550 5.7.1 spf-t...@openspf.org: Recipient address rejected: SPF Tests: Mail-From Result=pass: Mail From=john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us HELO name=na3sys009aog113.obsmtp.com http://na3sys009aog113.obsmtp.com/ HELO Result=none Remote IP=74.125.149.209 ## Original message headers: Received: from Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.us http://exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us/ (10.11.1.25) by Exchange-Edge.taylor.k12.fl.us http://exchange-edge.taylor.k12.fl.us/ (10.11.1.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:32 -0400 Received: from Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.us http://exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us/ ([2002:96b0:25ac::96b0:25ac]) by Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.us http://exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us/ ([2002:96b0:25ac::96b0:25ac]) with mapi; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:32 -0400 From: John Hornbuckle john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us To: spf-t...@openspf.org spf-t...@openspf.org Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:31 -0400 Subject: Thread-Index: Acs6Tq32q3GCr+z8TcK9J2xj/mXdNA== Message-ID: e4f47298c1dd67478772ed46f048b6be076ce00...@exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_000_E4F47298C1DD67478772ED46F048B6BE076CE001E0ExchangeCoret_ MIME-Version: 1.0 Return-Path: john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us
Re: Uninstall Exchange 2000
Start by evaluating/modifying permissions on the root just as it's referenced in the error: SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\EventLog\Application - Sean On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Steve Hart sh...@wrightbg.com wrote: I assume this is in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE? The path listed in that error shows as a folder in regedit with dozens of subfolders and keys. Is there a way to pin down the culprit? *Steve Hart*** Network Administrator 503.491.4343 -Direct | 503.492.8160 - Fax -- *From:* Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] *Sent:* Thursday, August 12, 2010 10:57 AM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Uninstall Exchange 2000 You need to look at the permissions on the key in regedit. If I were to guess, it’s looking for SYSTEM. Just add the user, FC, and see if you get any further. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ *From:* Steve Hart [mailto:sh...@wrightbg.com] *Sent:* Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:55 PM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Uninstall Exchange 2000 I got that far, LOL The user account I’m using is a member of the Exchange Full Admins group, a local admin on the machine and a domain admin. What else do I need? *Steve Hart*** Network Administrator 503.491.4343 -Direct | 503.492.8160 - Fax -- *From:* Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, August 11, 2010 5:08 PM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Uninstall Exchange 2000 Well, this seems to indicate that the user who is doing the uninstall doesn’t have sufficient permission to do that: [17:10:24] Interpreting line OpenMachineKey:SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\EventLog\Application [17:10:24] CInsParser::ScProcessLine (K:\admin\src\libs\exsetup\hiddenw1.cxx:1226) Error code 0XC0070005 (5): Access is denied Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ *From:* Steve Hart [mailto:sh...@wrightbg.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, August 11, 2010 7:56 PM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* Uninstall Exchange 2000 I’ve been struggling with uninstalling our last E2000 server for some time. I’ve been through the entire process outlined for removing the last legacy Exchange server and I’ve reached the step of uninstalling Exchange. I’ve been getting “Access denied” error messages when the uninstall attempts to remove registry entries. Here’s a relevant portion of the setup logs. Ideas?? The operation has completed successfully. [17:10:23] Entering CBaseComponent::ScSetup [17:10:23] Beginning Remove of Microsoft Exchange Instant Messaging Service component [17:10:23] Beginning Remove of Services Atom sub-component [17:10:23] Entering CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Entering CAtomServices::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Entering CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Leaving CAtomServices::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Entering CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Entering CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemoveRegistryKeys [17:10:23] Removing registry entries for Services Atom [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemoveRegistryKeys [17:10:23] Removing Active Directory objects for Services Atom [17:10:23] Entering CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemoveShortcuts [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemoveShortcuts [17:10:23] Removing IIS Metabase objects for Services Atom [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Entering CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScDeleteAtomServices [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScDeleteAtomServices [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseServiceAtom(Services Atom)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Completed Remove of Services Atom sub-component [17:10:23] Beginning Remove of Instant Messaging Service sub-component [17:10:23] Entering CBaseServiceAtom(Instant Messaging Service)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Entering CBaseServiceAtom(Instant Messaging Service)::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Leaving CBaseServiceAtom(Instant Messaging Service)::ScStopAtomServices [17:10:23] Entering CBaseAtom(Instant Messaging Service)::ScRemove [17:10:23] Entering CBaseAtom(Instant Messaging Service)::ScRemoveRegistryKeys [17:10:23] Removing registry entries for Instant Messaging Service [17:10:23] Entering CRegistryManager::ScProcessFile [17:10:23] Starting interpreter on file e:\exchan~1\setup\i386\exchange\im.uns [17:10:23] Interpreting line CreateProcessSafe:C:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\bin;regsvr32 /u /s msimcfg.dll;18 [17:10:23] Process created ... waiting (18) [17:10:24] Ignoring exit
Re: Any SPF Wizzes Out There?
Thanks! - Sean On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Damien Solodow damien.solo...@harrison.edu wrote: Yes. -- Sent using BlackBerry *From*: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com] *Sent*: Thursday, August 12, 2010 06:42 PM *To*: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com *Subject*: Re: Any SPF Wizzes Out There? I have a related question. Do you need a separate SPF record for each sending domain even if they're hosted within the same messaging environment? - Sean On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Chris Lin kan...@gmail.com wrote: You can try the link below for SPF wizard: http://old.openspf.org/wizard.html?mydomain= On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr michealespin...@gmail.com wrote: They should be - I created them! ;-) -- ME2 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Carol Fee c...@massbar.org wrote: Hmmm …. I just tried sending a message to spf-t...@openspf.org and got the same result. I know my spf records are good. *CFee* *From:* John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] *Sent:* Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:31 PM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* Any SPF Wizzes Out There? I’ve never had a problem with mail from us being rejected by a recipient using SPF until today. And naturally, it’s the Florida Auditor General’s office that’s rejecting it—so it’s kind of important to get it fixed. We use Google/Postini, so all of our mail is routed through them. Below my sig are the results I got when I sent a message to spf-t...@openspf.org. The message passed the Mail-From test, but got “none” for the HELO result. I don’t know much about this, but my understanding is that this result can be pass, fail, or none. I’m thinking that perhaps our lack of a “pass” here is what’s causing our mail to be rejected by the AG’s servers, but I have no idea how to fix it. Any suggestions? John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District www.taylor.k12.fl.us * * Generating server: Exchange-Edge.taylor.k12.fl.ushttp://exchange-edge.taylor.k12.fl.us/ spf-t...@openspf.org Postini #550 5.7.1 spf-t...@openspf.org: Recipient address rejected: SPF Tests: Mail-From Result=pass: Mail From= john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us HELO name=na3sys009aog113.obsmtp.com HELO Result=none Remote IP=74.125.149.209 ## Original message headers: Received: from Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.ushttp://exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us/(10.11.1.25) by Exchange-Edge.taylor.k12.fl.us http://exchange-edge.taylor.k12.fl.us/(10.11.1.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:32 -0400 Received: from Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.ushttp://exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us/([2002:96b0:25ac::96b0:25ac]) by Exchange-Core.taylor.k12.fl.us http://exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us/([2002:96b0:25ac::96b0:25ac]) with mapi; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:32 -0400 From: John Hornbuckle john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us To: spf-t...@openspf.org spf-t...@openspf.org Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:46:31 -0400 Subject: Thread-Index: Acs6Tq32q3GCr+z8TcK9J2xj/mXdNA== Message-ID: e4f47298c1dd67478772ed46f048b6be076ce00...@exchange-core.taylor.k12.fl.us Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_000_E4F47298C1DD67478772ED46F048B6BE076CE001E0ExchangeCoret_ MIME-Version: 1.0 Return-Path: john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us NOTICE: Florida has a broad public records law. Most written communications to or from this entity are public records that will be disclosed to the public and the media upon request. E-mail communications may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Any SPF Wizzes Out There?
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Sean Martin seanmarti...@gmail.com wrote: Do you need a separate SPF record for each sending domain even if they're hosted within the same messaging environment? SPF records let a domain specify policies on who is permitted to use that domain to send mail. For example, SPF records let example.com specify who can send mail claiming to be from the example.com domain. So the messaging environment doesn't come into play at all. If you have example.com and example.net, those are two different domains. A receiver checking SPF for example.com has no way of knowing that example.net is using the same messaging environment. In other words: Yes. :-) -- Ben
Re: Log Drive Full
The backup completed and the logs purged! I may have found the culprit. I enabled the registry keys for KB 972705. And immediately got a hit from a user with an iPhone. I disabled his Active Sync access, and the logs stopped growing. The logs were growing at a rate of 100mb/min, and now they seem to be back to normal, only generating one or two files a minute. Even though the issue is not completely fixed, I at least have a grasp on it. I really appreciate everyone's help, especially Michael's. I have been a long time lurker on this list (5+ years), and I am always amazed at the length everyone goes to help people out.
RE: Log Drive Full
For 2003 on up running the eseutil /mk ###.chk lets you take the guess work out of the process, it lets you know which logs have been committed to the DB so theoretically they don't need to be backed up as they're already part of the Db It takes less than a minute to run. Don't know if I'm doing a very good job of explaining it. It's never a good idea to compress anything Exchange, the change in file and or drive structure can do some real nasty things to the operation or lack thereof in Exchange. As a side note Exchange should not be installed on any drives that have the capability of being compressed or have DBs or logs on them. You can run into real funky problems if you have to move either to or from. When doing that log maneuver in house for whatever reason we like to see 10% free minimum better to be at 15% free (10% being well above the 1gig mark). Procedure dictates to never delete logs but rather move them to a safe place after running eseutil /mk to determine the committed logs. Get a couple backups under your belt then delete the old logs. Of course procedure is written by the highest Exchange authority available, wink, wink, nudge, nudge. M PS haven't run into you in a long time, hope everything is going well. I'm sequestered at the big house working nights for a while. -Original Message- From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 2:27 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Log Drive Full Yeah, but under my scheme, all log files would be present (with some or all of them compressed) before the backup starts, which I believe is different than what you're proposing - that is, starting backups with some logs missing. Kurt On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 14:18, Matt Moore mattmoore...@hotmail.com wrote: Good plan Kurt but, to add, if I may never move logs without first using eseutil /mk on the chk file to determine the check point and which logs can be moved safely. Save them in a safe place and then run the backup. The % free space is kind of a moving target as we don't know how much mail is received at any given time but 10% should get them into backup range, 15%+ better. M -Original Message- From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:55 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Log Drive Full Cool. I believe that's what MBS was getting at. If it were me, I'd move a few hundred of the latest log files to a different partition, then start compressing the oldest log files, a few hundred at a time, and when you have a bunch of them compressed (maybe a thousand or so) move the files back that you placed elsewhere, and keep going with your compression, until you have free disk space equal to some significant fraction of your total partition space - I'd guess about 10% free, but others will have a better answer on that exact number. At any rate, once that amount of free space is obtained, backups will work, and log files will disappear. This will take some time, but it's certainly a very clean way of getting this done. I definitely wouldn't highlight the log directory and compress the entire directory. - that will cause other problems. Stay the course. Kurt On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 13:41, Chris Blair chris_bl...@identisys.com wrote: Windows built in compress
RE: Uninstall Exchange 2000
Thanks Ben and Sean, I guess it's been too long since I've worked directly in the registry. In regedit, there's no properties selection displayed. In regedt32, I can get to permissions from the security menu. There a lot of groups with Full Control. Domain\Administrator Server\Administrators (Inherited) Domain\Domain Admins Domain\Enterprise Admins Domain\Exchange Full Admins Domain\Exchange Organization Administrators Domain\Exchange Services Server$(Domain\Server$) SYSTEM (Inherited) The account I'm using is a member of Domain Admins, Enterprise Admins, Exchange Full Admins and Exchange Organization Administrators, as well as others not related. Steve Hart Network Administrator 503.491.4343 -Direct | 503.492.8160 - Fax -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:44 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Uninstall Exchange 2000 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Steve Hart sh...@wrightbg.com wrote: The path listed in that error shows as a folder in regedit with dozens of subfolders and keys. Is there a way to pin down the culprit? In REGEDIT, registry keys are displayed as folders. So key==folder. The things that appear in the right pane are registry values. What are the permissions on the key in question? That is: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\EventLog\Application\ You can find out by right-clicking the folder icon for the key in question, and choosing Permissions. Chances are, the permissions on that key don't grant everything needed to the user account you're using to run the Exchange uninstaller. -- Ben
RE: Log Drive Full
Yeah those new Iphns are a real pieces of work. EXMON is your friend, EXMON is your friend... They've caused us quite a bit of grief for us. Now when we get an offender the phn ActiveSync gets disabled till we can move them to a special box. M -Original Message- From: Chris Blair [mailto:chris_bl...@identisys.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:48 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Log Drive Full The backup completed and the logs purged! I may have found the culprit. I enabled the registry keys for KB 972705. And immediately got a hit from a user with an iPhone. I disabled his Active Sync access, and the logs stopped growing. The logs were growing at a rate of 100mb/min, and now they seem to be back to normal, only generating one or two files a minute. Even though the issue is not completely fixed, I at least have a grasp on it. I really appreciate everyone's help, especially Michael's. I have been a long time lurker on this list (5+ years), and I am always amazed at the length everyone goes to help people out.
RE: Uninstall Exchange 2000
For no trouble, only The Administrator account should be used. Even the combo below doesn't have all the permissions. M -Original Message- From: Steve Hart [mailto:sh...@wrightbg.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 4:04 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Uninstall Exchange 2000 Thanks Ben and Sean, I guess it's been too long since I've worked directly in the registry. In regedit, there's no properties selection displayed. In regedt32, I can get to permissions from the security menu. There a lot of groups with Full Control. Domain\Administrator Server\Administrators (Inherited) Domain\Domain Admins Domain\Enterprise Admins Domain\Exchange Full Admins Domain\Exchange Organization Administrators Domain\Exchange Services Server$(Domain\Server$) SYSTEM (Inherited) The account I'm using is a member of Domain Admins, Enterprise Admins, Exchange Full Admins and Exchange Organization Administrators, as well as others not related. Steve Hart Network Administrator 503.491.4343 -Direct | 503.492.8160 - Fax -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:44 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Uninstall Exchange 2000 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Steve Hart sh...@wrightbg.com wrote: The path listed in that error shows as a folder in regedit with dozens of subfolders and keys. Is there a way to pin down the culprit? In REGEDIT, registry keys are displayed as folders. So key==folder. The things that appear in the right pane are registry values. What are the permissions on the key in question? That is: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\EventLog\Application\ You can find out by right-clicking the folder icon for the key in question, and choosing Permissions. Chances are, the permissions on that key don't grant everything needed to the user account you're using to run the Exchange uninstaller. -- Ben
Re: Uninstall Exchange 2000
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Steve Hart sh...@wrightbg.com wrote: In regedit, there's no properties selection displayed. In regedt32, I can get to permissions from the security menu. Oh. I forgot that Win 2000 has the brain damaged registry editor twins. Sorry. Yah. There a lot of groups with Full Control. ... Domain\Domain Admins ... The account I'm using is a member of Domain Admins ... Hmmm. Interesting. Did you check for any Deny permissions on that registry key? Beyond that... nothing comes to mind immediately. -- Ben
Re: Log Drive Full
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 15:48, Chris Blair chris_bl...@identisys.com wrote: The backup completed and the logs purged! I may have found the culprit. I enabled the registry keys for KB 972705. And immediately got a hit from a user with an iPhone. I disabled his Active Sync access, and the logs stopped growing. The logs were growing at a rate of 100mb/min, and now they seem to be back to normal, only generating one or two files a minute. Even though the issue is not completely fixed, I at least have a grasp on it. I really appreciate everyone's help, especially Michael's. I have been a long time lurker on this list (5+ years), and I am always amazed at the length everyone goes to help people out. fsking iP* equipment has given me more heartburn than any other technology ever. Hate 'em, hate 'em, hate 'em. This also means you should check your IIS logs - they've probably grown like crazy too. Kurt
Re: Log Drive Full
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 16:01, Matt Moore mattmoore...@hotmail.com wrote: PS haven't run into you in a long time, hope everything is going well. I'm sequestered at the big house working nights for a while. You're in jail? Heh. Been beyond busy with family - a new child will suck up all your time and attention, in both good and bad ways. Fortunately it's mostly good. Kurt
(Exch2k7) Applying SSL Certificates
We are trying to add an SSL cert for POP/IMAP in Exchange 2007, Although the certificate that was added has been applied to a AccessRule for IMAP, POP, IIS. Can we keep that certificate and add a separate one for the IMAP, POP rule? If we are able to do that, how would it affect the certificate for the other SSL AccessRule? Thanks, Bob
RE: (Exch2k7) Applying SSL Certificates
What is an AccessRule? That's not anything that has to do with Exchange. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Robert Smith [mailto:exch...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 8:55 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: (Exch2k7) Applying SSL Certificates We are trying to add an SSL cert for POP/IMAP in Exchange 2007, Although the certificate that was added has been applied to a AccessRule for IMAP, POP, IIS. Can we keep that certificate and add a separate one for the IMAP, POP rule? If we are able to do that, how would it affect the certificate for the other SSL AccessRule? Thanks, Bob
Exchange 2010 install
Im trying to setup my migration to exchange 2010 from 2003. With this I want to include outlook anywhere. I have a 2nd server to run as the ISA server. My question is does any one have any good info on how to set this up? Chris Drobny Network Administrator LMS Intellibound, Inc. cdro...@lmsintellibound.com 770.724.0562 Office 404.797.9710 Cell
