Arrhhh... as I suspected. Ok, cheers, I'll struggle on alone.
___
No, we're all lying to spite you.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 3:07 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Internet Mail Service / Connections tab / Time-outs button.
Neil
-Original Message-
From: Tony McCarthy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: 30 August 2002 00:56
Posted To: Swynk Exchange List
Conversation: Undeliverable
Subject: Undeliverable
Hi Everyone,
One of our staff has
I've had this error when trying to copy to a newly created mailbox. A combination of
waiting for a little time to pass (for replication?) and actually getting the user to
login for the first time to the new mailbox, then re-running ExMerge again worked.
(I was moving from 5.5 to 2k tho)
Do you really want to do that? I wouldn't bring it down to a few hours. As
far as I know the accepted standard is 48 hours, bare minimum is 24 hours,
since SMTP tends to have amongst the lowest precedence on the internet.
-Original Message-
From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL
The reason why timeouts should be measured in days rather than hours is not
because of precedence, but transient failures, usually at the receiving end.
However, if your business requires e-mail to be guaranteed delivery in a
short timescale, then you having warnings (not timeouts) relatively
It seems that we're all at it...
There's been a few threads to this so apologies if this has been covered
but I don't think *this* bit has:
I've searched web and done reading of technet/ white papers etc and
found the following:
SBS: How to Upgrade SBS 4.x to SBS 2000 (Part 1 of 2):
It seems that we're all at it...
There's been a few threads to this so apologies if this has been
covered but I don't think *this* bit has:
I've searched web and done reading of technet/ white papers etc and
found the following:
SBS: How to Upgrade SBS 4.x to SBS 2000 (Part 1 of 2):
I have my VPN Working, But it will not see my exchange 2000 server. Is
there A setting in exchange to let it be seen over a VPN.
I Can see All servers on the network, but the exchange.
Thanks,
Jeff
_
List posting FAQ:
Can the Site Replication Service be removed once the last Exchange 5.5 server is
decommissioned? Is it used for anything else?
Wilson
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:
I take it you have tried to ping the server.
--
From: Jeffery Caudill
Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 07:12
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: VPN
I have my VPN Working, But it will not see my exchange 2000 server. Is
there A
I can not ping the server, but I can ping all other servers and machines
-Original Message-
From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 8:28 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: VPN
I take it you have tried to ping the server.
--
From:
Is the Exchange server on a different box to where your VPN set up exists. I
think we need some more info on
your set up, ie..is there a firewall involved?
--
From: Couch, Nate[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Reply To: Exchange Discussions
Sent: 30 August 2002 13:27
Yes, as you'll need to do this before removing the ADC. Check out the
article below for further info.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;Q272314
Neil
-Original Message-
From: Varghese, Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: 30 August 2002 13:16
Posted To:
Q272314
-Original Message-
From: Varghese, Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 8:16 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: SRS
Can the Site Replication Service be removed once the last Exchange 5.5
server is decommissioned? Is it used for anything else?
The Network has Two windows 2000 servers, one for Information starage (I can see), and
one with the Exchange 2000 software installed (I cannot see). They have DSL
connection to the internet with a Sonic firewall w/ VPN installed. Then all other
users computers.
-Original Message-
As u can't ping the Exchange box, there will be a problem connecting to it.
For hosts outside your connection
server, (mines only from NT4 experience with VPN) sometimes u needed a
static mapping on the VPN server to
the host u need conectivitly to.
--
From: Jeffery
User Group
Exchange 2000 SP2
NT 2000 SP2
Can any one tell me if there is a reg setting or a Technet Q article to stop users
logging into Exchange 2000 whilst doing maintenance work. Is there another trick?
With Exchange 5.5 there is a reg setting but this does not work with 2000 LogonasOnly
Jeffery --
(read this twice, I'm sleepy and not very coherent. Usually I'm not sleepy --but
still not very coherent!)
The good news is your problem has nothing to do with Exchange.
The bad news is your problem has something to do with your VPN setup. It sounds
like you can ping your
While upgrading to sp4 (Exchange 5.5), I got the following error:
The specified service is disabled and cannot be started:
Microsoft Windows NT
ID no:0xc0020422
When I go into Exch Admin I get the following error:
Extension SMTP could not be loaded. An error occured during file
replication.
Plus - I am still receiving mail in public folders (like from this
groups), but I can't get mail from other outside sources to my inbox.
While upgrading to sp4 (Exchange 5.5), I got the following error:
The specified service is disabled and cannot be started:
Microsoft Windows NT
ID
Hi All,
Server info:
Dual P3 1.0GHz
512MB SDRAM
Window 2000 SP2
OS RAID: OS on mirrored partions and RAID 5 over 3 paritions
Seagate DAT drive 04687 on an Adaptec AIC-7850 PCI SCSI card
I have been using Veritas Backup Exec 8.0 with Exchange 5.5 for
sometime now. I have never experience
Opps,
I am also running Exchange 5.5 SP4
-Original Message-
From: Joe Rojas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 10:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Corrupt file reported from Veritas Backup Exec 8.0
Hi All,
Server info:
Dual P3 1.0GHz
512MB SDRAM
Window
You are also doing brick level backups.
If you insist, upgrade BE to the latest ver and build.
-Original Message-
From: Joe Rojas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 10:04 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Corrupt file reported from Veritas Backup Exec 8.0 -
I'm having problems with my Exchange server. It seems that I can get mail
from inside users, but unable to send or receive from outside. I thinking
that it's my DNS but I can't pinpoint the problem. Can you supply a list
of criteria that I need to be probed.
It would really help.
Thanks,
J
Howdy All!
Our Network Team is looking for Outlook 2000/2002 bandwidth recommendation
for our remote sites. The users are light mail users and will be homed on
Exchange 2000. The sites are connected over a 384K frame circuit with 30-40
users.
IMS Configured?
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 5:56 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: MS Exchange 5.5
I'm having problems with my Exchange server. It seems that I can get mail
from inside users, but unable to send or
Whats the CIR on the frame?
384K, IMO, is cutting it a bit close for 30-40 users.
-Original Message-
From: ed Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 12:28 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Outlook Bandwidth Recommendation
Howdy All!
Our Network Team is
Have set up the Internet Mail connector?
Have u verified DNS is working correctly as well as TCP/IP
Can Telnet to remote remote sites on port 25 from your exchange server,
Any more info on your set up would be appreciated
--
From: Jonathan[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Reply To:
Dig out rpcping and see if that helps isolate the issue.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 2:11 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Admin.exe can no longer connect to Exch 5.5
after W2K patch
Arrhhh... as I
I don't know frame, but keep in mind that outlook/exchange is heavily
transaction based, so make sure the latency is low.
We had around 10 users on a 128k ISDN link (this was dedicated to Exchange
traffic only), and it was horridly slow...
You might also want to educate the users to work
You can control what versions of the client can log onto the server, setting
that to a value which excludes all clients would probably achive what you
are looking for... Don't have the Q handy though.
-Original Message-
From: Marc Mearns [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday,
Has it ever worked? Base don the information provided support.microsoft.com
is about as far as one can narrow it down in terms of suggestions.
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 4:56 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: MS
Q288894?
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 10:51 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Disable all user from logging into Exchange server whilst doi
ng Maintenance work
You can control what versions of the client can
Well, you can use my off the cuff standard of 4k each for the first 10 users
and 2k for every user thereafter of _available_ bandwidth. It's worked OK
for me so far.
-Original Message-
From: ed Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 11:28 PM
To: Exchange
And after 11pm, all calls are only 7 cents a minute.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 10:55 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook Bandwidth Recommendation
Well, you can use my off the cuff standard of 4k each
We had the same problem after we moved from 5.5 to 2000 on a new server.
I don't have a magic answer, though. It went away after we deleted 5 or
6 messages and has been OK since.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Joe Rojas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 30 August 2002 15:01
To:
-Original Message-
From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 5:35 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Undeliverable
Do you really want to do that? I wouldn't bring it down to a
few hours. As
far as I know the accepted standard is 48
Anyone know if there is a way to force the Exchange Migration Wizard to
use a particular DC when it runs? I think that I have searched for this
before in vain. I haven't had any luck this time around either.
_
List posting FAQ:
What is the domain name that's having issues? That's the simplest way to
get this sorted out!
- Original Message -
From: Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 5:56 PM
Subject: MS Exchange 5.5
I'm having problems with my
Buy? Find a 486 or better, load your favorite Linux distro on it and you are
set for the foreseeable future.
And if you don't have any spare 486s, I'll send you a truckload.
--
be - MOS
All great discoveries are made by mistake. --Young
-Original Message-
From: Gonzalez, Alex
What finally got it to work (these quirks are a b!tch the first time around)
. ..
Running the version of ExMerge on the Exchange 2000 Server CD worked
flawlessly for step 1 in the 2 step process.
Then I had to switch back to the older 1.97 version in BORK v4.5 for step 2
to function correctly.
Long weekend is here
No work, no users, no phone
Just relax - and sleep.
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:
You should go out to Microsoft and download the v3.71 to use for the second
step. Your 1.97 could cause problems with the 2000 version.
Geoff...
-Original Message-
From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 1:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re:
well, when a service pack install fails, you have to re-do it (this may
or may not be your out-of-date-dll problem)
What service was set to disabled during install? Even if it's one you
never use (i.e. MS Event Svc), you have to set them to at least manual
during a service pack.
Make sure all
I'm going to be putting together a web site for a PC break/fix business.
What are your favorite websites relative to design that I can look at for
inspiration?
Thanks!
Bill Lambert
Endoxy Healthcare
847-941-9206
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi All,
Exchange 5.5 SP4
Win2K SP2
I have a user that communicates with a customer daily. Every time an e-mail
is sent out to this customer, it comes back with a message of:
A mail message was not sent because the maximum time for delivery has
expired.
Now as you know this message comes to the
People actually fix PC's? I thought you just throw them away and buy new
better/faster ones.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 12:32 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Way OT - Websites
I'm going to be putting together
interesting. When our users hit the logout button, they see a Page cannot
be displayed page. Do you see that as well?
-Original Message-
From: Varghese, Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 8:28 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA2K logout.asp
You must be thinking of MACs.
-Original Message-
From: EXTERN Hlabse Tony (Tek Systems;RBNA/CIT1)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 1:37 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Way OT - Websites
People actually fix PC's? I thought you just throw them away and buy
what's a PC? ;-)
-Original Message-
From: EXTERN Hlabse Tony (Tek Systems;RBNA/CIT1)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 1:37 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Way OT - Websites
People actually fix PC's? I thought you just throw them away and buy new
Who has inspiration on a Friday of a holiday weekend at 2:10 p.m. EST?
Geoff...
-Original Message-
From: Mellott, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 1:41 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Way OT - Websites
what's a PC? ;-)
-Original
I upgraded an NT4/Exchange 5.5 machine to Win2k recently. We are running a
Win2k domain, and the machine was previously a BDC. When prompted by Active
Directory to upgrade, I selected leave as member server. Everything was
fine.
Now I am getting some strange Active Directory behaviour, a
No the Mid-American Conference is not a PC.
-Original Message-
From: Joe Rojas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 12:40 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Way OT - Websites
You must be thinking of MACs.
-Original Message-
From: EXTERN Hlabse Tony
Run dcpromo on the exchange box and demote it.
It was previously a bdc meaning you demoted it before you install w2k? I
doesn't sound like that's true.
-Original Message-
From: Warren Cundy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 11:12 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Long weekend is here
HP maintenance is planned
On Sunday - of course
- Original Message -
From: Ali Wilkes (IT) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 12:17
Subject: Haiku Friday
Long weekend is here
No work, no users, no phone
Just
Make sure your default shares for exchange are still shared out.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Omilian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Friday, August 30, 2002 8:40 AM
Posted To: Exchange Discussion List
Conversation: SP 4 problems
Subject: SP 4 problems
While upgrading to sp4
lol
-Original Message-
From: Steven A. Christensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 1:44 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Haiku Friday
Long weekend is here
HP maintenance is planned
On Sunday - of course
- Original Message -
From: Ali Wilkes
We are running 384 K fractional T1 with 20-30 active users. No Complaints.
It sort of surprised me that we have had no complaints when we migrated from
local servers to a Big central server.
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30,
Right, but they have 30-40 users. I now that sounds nitpicky, but it can
make a difference ( as well as the CIR on that circuit).
I have had 20-25 users on a 256 cir w/o issue. Once we went to 30 and above
however, we began to see performance issues until we raised it to 512.
YMMV.
I was having a discussion with someone on a Security List the other day who
said it was nonsense to NOT run AV on an Exchange Server. Just exclude the
DB's and all is well. I have heard also 2 sides: this is true and NEVER run
file-level AV on an Exchange server.
What's the group consensus?
And
I don't do that. I only use Exchange AV on mine.
My Exchange server only provides email services.
Others do as you are asking, I guess it's a matter of taste. Some folk also
do not have dedicated servers for email, so they have to pull double duty.
In that case I would probably put something on
I would say that if your using your exchange server for other things
then yes you should probably run an AV solution on it. But if your using
it for Exchange only then I would just be running and Exchange level AV
solution
-Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
XGEN: Recommendations for Troubleshooting an Exchange Computer with
Antivirus Software Installed
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q245822
This tells you what and what not to scan.
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At:
Did he say why? It's just nonsense to say that and not provide a
reason.
If your Exchange server *gasp* provides other services, like file and
print, then sure. If it is just an exchange server with no shares
available to users etc, then I see no reason to.
Scan all service packs prior to
This is what I have always thought as well.
All my Exchange servers are dedicated as well as task dedicated within
Exchange as well.
However, when Klez came calling we did get some hits on the Exchange servers
through their default shares.
There didnt seem to be any damage, but I was then called
Rule of thumb: apply service packs in order of their release.
William
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris H
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 5:45 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Service Packs
One other quick question . . . .
Does
If Klez hit you through your default shares, you have a much bigger problem
-- Someone is running email with Administrator privledges. This person
needs to be found and removed from the administrator list! Either that or
shoot them!
Dennis
At 08:43 PM 8/30/2002 -0400, Chris H wrote:
This
unfortunately I think it is my boss! :(
- Original Message -
From: Dennis Depp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: Server Protect on an Exchange Server
If Klez hit you through your default shares, you have a
I am so sorry!
At 09:25 PM 8/30/2002 -0400, Chris H wrote:
unfortunately I think it is my boss! :(
- Original Message -
From: Dennis Depp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: Server Protect on an Exchange Server
I see nothing wrong with it as long as the proper files and directories are
excluded, especially in the case of E2K where IIS is a requirement on every
box. Assuming a properly provisioned box, I don't really see a downside to
the practice.
As to the point of it being nonsense not to... well, I
Finally got this resolved with MS PSS help. Apparently IIS didn't install properly.
Had to go to a command prompt in winnt\system32\inetsrv and type rundll32 wamreg.dll,
CreateIISPackage
This registered the DLL and everything worked.
wilson
-Original Message-
From: Varghese,
Actually this is right. I had Norton virus scanner and the Exchange version running
on an old Exchange 5.5 Server and when we got hit by a virus, it ended up quarantining
the log (or was it the DB, can't remember) file and killing the exchange server.. So
if you do scan with a file level
72 matches
Mail list logo
