I'm not sure about the x.400 spec, but if you are upgrading from 5.5 to 2000
then you are correct. Since 2000 requires Active Directory, AD follows the
standard BIND DNS naming conventions. It only allows letters, numbers or a
hyphen. An underscore is allowed in a NetBIOS naming convention, but
Most time in email transactions is recorded as UTC (AKA Greenwich Mean Time)
+/- the timezone offset in hours.
In other words, the time stamp on this message should read something like
11:24 -4:00
I'd guess you're West Coast USA, at which point that would be correct.
During non-Daylight savings
UTC Coordinated Universal Time (zulu or Greenwich Mean Time, GMT)
William
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Edgington,
Jeff
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 7:32 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
While looking at one of the mail headers
;cotelligent.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:07 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
This is where things get really complicated.
These 2 servers are not in the same ORG as all the other
servers. They are,
however (through some procedure that I am have no knowledge
: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:36 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
Not really an option.
The scenario is this:
The one remote server is in San Diego that used to be
connected to
the other remote server in Irvine,CA by an X.400
connector over a T1.
The only
, November 06, 2002 8:35 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
G-d do you need a consulting engagement! I know someone in San Diego who
could spend a couple days with you on this if you really need the help.
Anyway, let me see if I can sort this out:
EC -x400- Irvine (cost 1)
EC
, November 04, 2002 5:54 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
So, it continues to sound more like a bandwidth or network problem. Did we
ever determine what 'too long' of a delivery time meant?
-Original Message-
From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com]
Sent
]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
IIRC, you're getting exceeded the maximum number of associations which
usually indicates that the total number of connections and associations,
which I believe is 9 associations and 10 connects per
Both way's
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 8:43 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: X.400 issues
On which MTA? The sending or receiving one?
- Original Message -
From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL
Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA
-Original Message-
From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:56 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
Yes, the queues back up for an hour or so then flush clean in
a 2 minute
span
Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:55 AM
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
Yes, the queues back up for an hour or so then flush clean in a 2 minute
span once the X.400 connection is successful. However, due to the way the
routing table is, I have messages flowing
[mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:36 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
What is it about your routing table that is causing the looping messages? Is
it possible for you to remove redundant routes, even just one or two, to see
what happens
- Original Message -
From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:36 PM
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
Not really an option.
The scenario is this:
The one remote server is in San Diego that used to be connected
What does usage on task manager look like when the server's MTA gets backed
up. Maybe it's the box itself.
- Original Message -
From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:36 PM
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections
289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be opened
1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info
9202: low-level diagnostic
: RE: X.400 issues
Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service
The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity
(X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19
34](12)
Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type
connector, be prepared to rebuild any cross-site
distribution lists after you recreate the connectors (X400 and dirrep).
Darcy
-Original Message-
From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
How many X.400 connectors do you have defined on the central machine? (And
maybe on remote ones as well). If you have too many: you will need to
increase the number of Control Blocks being used. Take a search through MS
KB for TCPIP Control
Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site Connectors. Yes x400
are more efficient just curious.
- Original Message -
From: Darcy Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:06 AM
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
I'd think
[mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: X.400 issues
Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site
Connectors. Yes x400
are more efficient just curious.
- Original Message -
From: Darcy Adams [EMAIL
I thought he said he had T1's across his network though. If not then I agree
X400 much more efficient.
- Original Message -
From: Roger Seielstad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:35 AM
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
Cuz Site
- Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:36 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: X.400 issues
I thought he said he had T1's across his network though. If
not then I agree
These servers are all connected by WAN links and X.400 connectors are
supposed to be more resilient to network interruptions.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: X.400 issues
Generally sounds like a bad one.
-Original Message-
From: Bennett, Joshua
To: Exchange Discussions
Sent: 11/4/2002 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I
received
a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack
]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:27 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
These servers are all connected by WAN links and X.400 connectors are
supposed to be more resilient to network interruptions.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com
I use supposed to be due to the issue at hand that is driving me insane.
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
Replace supposed to be with definitely
. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA
-Original Message-
From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:24 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
I use supposed
I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has available and again,
it did not correct the situation.
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:47 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has available and
again,
it did not correct the situation.
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:47 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has
available and again,
it did not correct the situation.
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com
On which MTA? The sending or receiving one?
- Original Message -
From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 2:10 PM
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has available
www.eventid.net
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett,
Joshua
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:05
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X
of value?
-Original Message-
From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
www.eventid.net
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:bounce-exchange-224131
I would investigate if your having any issues with the network itself. Has
anyone complain they didn't get there mail sent?
- Original Message -
From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:55 AM
Subject: X.400 issues
No, however I occasionally get complaints that it take too long.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:10 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: X.400 issues
I would investigate if your having any issues with the network
Any other events logged such as Event ID 57 ?
No, however I occasionally get complaints that it take too long.
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:
No, however I am getting a lot of 9202 errors on the remote server.
-Original Message-
From: Atkinson, Miles [mailto:miles.atkinson;bakerhughes.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:37 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
Any other events logged such as Event ID 57
Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or
guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective
you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the
number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which
, 2002 10:45 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
No, however I am getting a lot of 9202 errors on the remote server.
-Original Message-
From: Atkinson, Miles [mailto:miles.atkinson;bakerhughes.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:37 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE
Once it leaves the server you are at the mercy of the internet. Or are these
internal emails.
- Original Message -
From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:24 AM
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
No, however I
: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or
guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective
you) could include the Event ID source and description
AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: X.400 issues
Once it leaves the server you are at the mercy of the internet. Or are these
internal emails.
- Original Message -
From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:24
When I had similar issues between the core Exchange servers in Houston and a
remote one in Italy, that the queues in the MTAs would bunch up behind a
large message. After extensive Exchange troubleshooting (in vain) it
turned out we had a dirty WAN circuit - when that was replaced mail flow
]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or
guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the
collective
you) could include the Event ID source
In the X.400 connector definition are you identifying the remote server
by host name? If so, change it to IP address and see if the problem
goes away.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-Original Message-
I am actually using the IP address (probably should have stated that in the
original post, sorry)
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
In the X.400 connector
PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:59 PM
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
I am actually using the IP address (probably should have stated that in
the
original post, sorry)
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net
Discussions
Subject: Re: X.400 issues
Sounds like you need to put some type of monitor on your network to see if
there is anything abnormal with it particularly the links. Maybe if traffic
is that heavy maybe multiple X.400 connectors to the sites that are having
this issue?
- Original Message
The archives will reveal detailed answers to this question. My feeling is
it is sufficient to have something like Antigen or ScanMail running on all
of your servers, along with an SMTP scanner on your DMZ relay host, but
YMMV.
Serdar Soysal
-Original Message-
From: James Mike
Since you've done everything else, have you checked your DNS setup ?
Specifically, what are the entries for your preferred DNS servers ?
What entries do you have for forwarders ?
Are you forwarding to an ISP or other internet DNS service ?
there... I
thought I was going nuts...
MP.
-Original Message-
From: Brian Meline [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, 1 February 2002 2:02 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 problem...
Since you've done everything else, have you checked your DNS setup ?
Specifically, what
What's the design goal here?
-Original Message-
From: Mark Peoples
To: Exchange Discussions
Sent: 1/30/2002 6:16 PM
Subject: X.400 problem...
Hi,
I have an e2k server that routes internet-bound messages to the x400
connector and then to my E5.5 server for tranmission. When I disable
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 12:08 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 problem...
What's the design goal here?
-Original Message-
From: Mark Peoples
To: Exchange Discussions
Sent: 1/30/2002 6:16 PM
Subject: X.400 problem...
Hi,
I have an e2k server that routes
Have you installed an SMTP Connector on an Exchange 2000 server?
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark
using SMTP to communicate with the IMS on the other e2k
server. This is where the problem lies...
All servers are in the same org / site.
HTH,
MP
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 12:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE
: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 7:12 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 problem...
The design goal is to have a native e2k site (remove
dependencies from, and turn off the e5.5 server).
I can't do this at the moment without affecting the outbound
mail transfer of 1 e2k server
Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Peoples
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:48 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 problem...
Yes,
I have:
1 e5.5
a call to PSS is in
order
Or is that giving myself too much work (worry) for nothing?
Your feedback is appreciated!
Thanks,
MP
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 1:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2002 1:31 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 problem...
What do you mean an Exchange 2000 server with an Internet Mail Service?
That term does not apply to Windows 2000. I am asking specifically if
you have an SMTP Connector on your
]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 8:53 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 problem...
It may solve the problem... but I am just anticipating the
consequences if removing the server form the organization
doesn't work...?
Will I have mail sitting on the e2k server in the x400
2002 2:27 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 problem...
Well, you could probably start by removing the IMS from the Exchange 5.5
server. Easy rollback from there if needed.
Chris
--
Chris Scharff
Senior Sales Engineer
MessageOne
If you can't measure, you can't manage
, 2002 7:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 problem...
Yep - I have tried that.
I removed it completely, restarted all services to make sure that there
were no residual nasties... and then I watched the mail queue up in the
MTA.
In the end, I had to re-create the e5.5 IMC to get
Yes...
Did you recalculate routing?
FTR, the routing table in site addressing (e5.5 admin) shows the e2k
server (with SMTP connector) as the routing server, but in the GWART,
the e5.5 IMC is the chosen SMTP route. It doesn't see the e2k SMTP
connector... When i hit recalculate routing - nothing
Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Peoples
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 6:57 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 problem...
Sorry,
yes, there are 2
: Thursday, 31 January 2002 3:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 problem...
What's the address space tab show on the Exchange 5.5 server? If the
only entry is a star, delete the star entry and add a new one for domain
clownpenis.fart. Then recalculate routing. See if messages don't go
and Bricked Backups!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Peoples
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 8:52 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 problem...
Ed,
I just tried the clownpenis.fart thing... and when I send a message from
: Thursday, 31 January 2002 4:04 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 problem...
Then I would guess that something is wrong in the configuration of your
Exchange 2000 SMTP Connector where it won't route to the Internet or it
isn't seen by the other server.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Peoples
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 9:17 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 problem...
That being the case, is it worth deleting the e5.5 IMC (or changing the
addressing to clownpenis.fart), and re-creating the e2k server SMTP
connector
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:17 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 problem...
That being the case, is it worth deleting the e5.5 IMC (or changing the
addressing to clownpenis.fart), and re-creating the e2k server SMTP
connector at the same time? Will this make the e2k
Y'all need to check the headers of the original message; didn't come from
me.
- Original Message -
From: Andy David [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 7:37 AM
Subject: RE: X
I think I'll add this to my disclaimer
The list stripped out the original headers. The message actually originated
from postoffice01.aruplabs.com
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 10:32 PM
Subject: X
--_ABC1234567890DEF_
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X
Yes, Master.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 8:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: X
--_ABC1234567890DEF_
December 2001 12:33
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X
another Bin. Lads Coded Message ..? :-)
Kuminda Chandimith
Sr. Technical Consultant
Ducont.com FZ-LLC
Tel: + 971-4-3913000 Ext 237
Fax: +971-4-3913001
http://www.ducont.com
-Original Message-
From: Jennifer Baker [mailto:[EMAIL
It's all so clear now. Thank you for showing me the true meaning of
Christmas.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 11:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: X
--_ABC1234567890DEF_
I think I'll add this to my disclaimer.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 11:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: X
--_ABC1234567890DEF_
M X
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 8:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: X
--_ABC1234567890DEF_
_
List posting FAQ:
Yes, Master.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 8:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: X
--_ABC1234567890DEF_
_
List posting FAQ:
and they
have reached it.
Sandhya
-Original Message-
From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:12 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 Error
Hi John
I thought this was an ongoing, persistent problem. Sorry if I gave you bad
advice.
Thanks
Russell
Hi John
I thought this was an ongoing, persistent problem. Sorry if I gave you bad
advice.
Thanks
Russell
-Original Message-
From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 2:48 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 Error
Russell,
No I
I read it with him. And have no clue either.
--
Kevinm M WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, CKWSE CKST
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bowles, John L.
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 10:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: X.400 Error
All,
I'm
Hi there
I'll take a stab at this
If you go into the properties of the email address of the person in
question, you can modify their X.400 address. In the advanced properties,
you can set the values mentioned in the Q article listed below. Try that
and see if that works.
Thanks
Russell
Celera Genomics
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 1:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 Error
Importance: High
Hi there
I'll take a stab at this
If you go
]]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 2:19 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 Error
Russell,
I've looked through a few accounts. And all the accounts have nothing in
those fields. Same as the two accounts in question. Is there something I'm
missing here? Thanks for you help
, 2001 2:38 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 Error
Hi John
This was just a shot in the dark. I'm not too sure exactly what the Q
article is referring to, but if you populate those X.400 fields in the two
problem accounts, does the error disappear??
Thanks
Russell
-Original
Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 Error
Russell,
I've looked through a few accounts. And all the accounts have nothing in
those fields. Same as the two accounts in question. Is there something
I'm
missing here? Thanks for you help.
___
John Bowles
Exchange
]
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 2:41 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: X.400 Error
Haven't played with or do not have a 5.5 Exchange box all my current work is
2000 with me. But wasn't there something about putting a space
The administrative field cannot be blank. By default it is set to a space.
Wouldn't be the first time someone blanked it out unintentionally.
Quick fix: open the x.400 addressing object for the site. Modify the x.400
address (like the administrative field) and hit apply (NOT OK yet). Modify
it
X400 uses port 102
-Original Message-
From: uppiliv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, 26 October 2001 2:00 a.m.
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: x.4oo and Firewall (checkpoint 2000)
I have two sites running exchange server.
The network is as follows
MS Exchange
Don't know if it will help but have a look at Q196381. It does talk about a
Raptor FW, but might have some bearing on your situation. The other
connectors you speak of, how are they configured?
Matthew
Exchange Disaster Recovery, Live it, Learn It, Love It, Get yours today!
Try specifying the other host with an IP address
rather than a NetBIOS name (which won't work at all)
or a DNS name (which often doesn't work right).
Ed Crowley
Compaq Computer
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi guys,
We have an x400 connector between 2 exchange servers
(UK and US) connected
If you don't want to replicate the directory, you can just set up the
connector to their Exchange org. But mail won't route to them unless you
manually enter the x.400 address in the form of [x.400:address] or create
CRs that have that info already entered. Perhaps they can perform a dir
export
Also, be sure to set up the address space correctly to cover just enough of
the address to have the mail route correctly.
-Original Message-
From: Bueffel, Scott M - CNF [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 7:29 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400
92 matches
Mail list logo
