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
Does anyone know of any issues with an x.400 address that contains an
underscore. It looks like the x.400 generator puts a "?" for the
underscore, but is this a problem. I am working on a system that is
upgrading from exchange 5.5, 3 sites, connected with site connectors. We
are unsu
It's about time.
Ryan,
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 4:27 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mac OS X and SMTP Auth on Exchange
While this doesn't answer your main question, you might find th
that dumb
application only understands the Default Global Address List. I hope they
will teach Entourage how to see other global address lists.
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 4:27 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subj
mers has Macs and they are using the mail applet that comes
with Mac OS X (POP3/SMTP)
They are reporting that often they can't send mail using our Exchange 2000
front-end servers.
They get a pop-up error:
the SMTP server "exchange.hosting.innerhost.com" rejected the password for
I've used the OS X Mail app with our 5.5 server without any problem. I went back to
Entourage a while back though, and don't remember if there were any setup oddities
with Mail.
-Peter
-Original Message-
From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, Februar
Message-
From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 4:27 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mac OS X and SMTP Auth on Exchange
While this doesn't answer your main question, you might find this
article interesting in relation to your last que
orov
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:22 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Mac OS X and SMTP Auth on Exchange
Hi all.
I have Exchange 2000 SP3.
One of the customers has Macs and they are using the mail applet that
comes with Mac OS X (POP3/SMTP)
They are reporting that often they can't s
Hi all.
I have Exchange 2000 SP3.
One of the customers has Macs and they are using the mail applet that comes with Mac
OS X (POP3/SMTP)
They are reporting that often they can't send mail using our Exchange 2000 front-end
servers.
They get a pop-up error:
the SMTP s
message.
Regards
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Hanumanthappa, Santhosh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 12:27 PM
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] X.400 connector problem
http
Sorry, too late... Already read it
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Hanumanthappa,
Santhosh
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 02:25
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Recall: X.400 connector problem
Hanumanthappa, Santhosh would like to
Hanumanthappa, Santhosh would like to recall the message, "X.400 connector
problem".
**
This message and any attachments are intended for the
individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended
recipient,
This was posted back in May '02 by someone else. Any new thoughts?
NT4 SP6a
EX 5.5 SP4
ScanMail 3.8
eManager 5.10 (5.11 will NOT work on this particular server?)
In version 5.x the developers changed the product to strip the body and
replace it with custom text that says "The origin
gington, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 10:32 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: X-OriginalArrivalTime
>
>
> While looking at one of the mail headers for my exchange system, I
> noticed that the X-OriginalArrivalTime value is 6 hours in
for my exchange system, I
noticed that the X-OriginalArrivalTime value is 6 hours in the future
from all other time-stamps in the header. I didn't find anything about
this value in RFC-2821 or RFC-2822. I also didn't find anything on the
MS KB and only enough information on the web to st
While looking at one of the mail headers for my exchange system, I
noticed that the X-OriginalArrivalTime value is 6 hours in the future
from all other time-stamps in the header. I didn't find anything about
this value in RFC-2821 or RFC-2822. I also didn't find anything on the
MS K
Still not sure why the X.400 connector was used and why the messages where
sent to the server in the same routing group but we added SMTP domain names
of the domains we want to go through the X.400 connector and that got us
working.
Still trying to figure out it didn't work normally.
regards
I have Xch 5.5 (adg-abd-serv1) and added now an Xhg 2000 (adg-abd-xch)
server for migration.
adg-abd-serv1 used to send mail via x.400 to another xch 5.5 (admsgsrv1).
I configured a x.400 connector between adg-abd-xch and admsgsrv1 and removed
the old x.400 connector between adg-abd-serv1 and
Thanks this is good information as I learn little by little. Our IMC is on
it's own separate box, so that would require port 25. The systems that
house our users do not have a IMC's but pass mail to the dedicated IMC's, so
they don't need port 25.
X.400...since it'
Without knowing exactly how you are configured, it is difficult to provide
meaningful recommendations, but I'll give it a shot.
In Exchange 5.5 if you do not have an IMC set up on it, then you should
not need port 25. Same thing with X.400. If you are not running any X.400
connectors, the
be enabled for the
servers with the IMC on it not on servers that only have mailboxes.
X.400 TCP 102, Is this really required for Exchange Servers and if so what
is it used for. Looking at TechNet, its used by older messaging systems?
For PDC and BDC's with no Exchange. What ports do I need
LOL...
I may have to call PSS. I appreciate the effort.
Thanks,
Josh
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 7:40 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
Now we have the picture...
You either need
in routing mail. Since you're routing across
organizations, your x.400 connectors have some very specific address space
entries, and I'll bet that you messed one of those up. And that's way to
hard to figure out in this kind of forum.
Personally, I'd either go for the consul
how any of this was done, again before my time. I
may want to just delete the old X.400 between SD and Irvine and force a
re-calculation of the routing table. I am grasping a straws at this point.
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com]
Sent
t correctly at both ends, and make sure that you're
not setting the option to only use least cost routes.
Now - another question. You bought this company. Did you migrate them to the
same Org as your company, or are they set up as a separate org name? If they
are different orgs, what are the addr
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
- 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 r
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 server that was connected to the hub server on the E. Coast was
the one in Irvine. There was
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange 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
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 th
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, Joshu
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 in a roundabout fashion.
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad
, 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@
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
t, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com]
> 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.
: Exchange Discussions
>
> 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
>
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
--
Roger D. 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
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&qu
:jbennett@;cotelligent.com]
> 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.
>
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
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
tor
Inovis - 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 ac
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, 20
Hlabse [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.
>
> - O
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
S
AM
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 &quo
irrep 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:
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 Blocks". These are se
: 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
d anything 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-excha
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
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
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 -
From: "Bennett, J
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
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
ssions
>
> 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:
if it's an
Exchange issue
[1] Crude I know.
<>
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
11:03 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 PRO
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: Warning Category: X
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:
, 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
can't seem to get
> a
> grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to
> the
> fact that mail is still flowing.
>
> Here is my setup:
>
> I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these
> servers. I have a hub and
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
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: http://www.swynk.com/sit
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
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,
these
servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my
remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server
that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT
domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that
Hi,
I have an Exchange 5.5 server that is not part of my organisation and
connects my organisation (running W2K and E2K) with the foreign org. through
and X.400 connector.
I need to add the mailboxes from that Exchange server as contacts into my
Active Directory. I was using the MSADC to
===
-Original Message-
From: Webb, Andy
Posted At: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 3:37 PM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: Internal Exchange Name vs. external Internet Address/Name
vs. X vs. XX vs. ...
Subject: RE: Internal Exchange Name vs. external Internet Address/Name
vs. X vs
it's a possibility.
===
Andy Webb[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.swinc.com
Simpler-Webb, Inc. Austin, TX512-322-0071
===
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [m
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 11:08 AM
Subject: X.400 Address
> I noticed that some of the individuals on my Exchange servers have
different
> X.400 addresses then other individuals. As of right now my si
I noticed that some of the individuals on my Exchange servers have different
X.400 addresses then other individuals. As of right now my site addressing
is:
c=US;a= ;p=SWBankTX;o=Corporate;s=lastname;g=firstname
yes that is a space for the ADMD...
I have some users that have an X.400 address
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:32 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: x.400 filter virus scanning
Fello Guru's,
Am looking for a solution which will scan for viruses within x.400 protocol.
I have looked at Mailsweeper for exchange 2000 and this seems to hav
Fello Guru's,
Am looking for a solution which will scan for viruses within x.400
protocol. I have looked at Mailsweeper for exchange 2000 and this seems to
have the capability. However do not want to upgrade the domain to 2000.
Needs to be kept NT and exchange 5.5.
Mailsweeper for exchang
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Address Book & X.400 Connector
Does anyone know if you can use an X.400 connector to connect 2 exchange
servers on different organisations together to share the same Global
address book. Also we would also like to use the X.400 connector to
transfer cale
Does anyone know if you can use an X.400 connector to connect 2 exchange
servers on different organisations together to share the same Global
address book. Also we would also like to use the X.400 connector to
transfer calender sharing information, public folders and emails. Does
anyone have
a little while 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
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 ?
_
EMAIL 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 th
D]
[mailto:[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
connec
: 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
m PSTs 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 mess
: 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
ch Consultant
Compaq 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...
Sorr
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 - nothin
, 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
nuary 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 ca
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> 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...?
>
---
From: Ed Crowley [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 SM
I guess 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:
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
L PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 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
Yes,
I have:
1 e5.5 SP4 server with an IMC. This is the only thing that prevents me from
turning the server off (cost of IMC = 100).
1 x exchange 2000 SP1 server with an Internet Mail Service (cost=1)
1 x exchange 2000 SP1 server that uses x.400 to communicate with the e5.5
server rather than
Peoples
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 4:17 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
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 the
MTA and IMC on the e5.5 server, instead of messages
EMAIL 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 t
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 di
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 the
MTA and IMC on the e5.5 server, instead of messages travelling via SMTP
to another e2k server in the site (with an IMS), the messages sit in the
x400 q
Im trying to connect a 5.5 exchange server to a 2000 exchange server via
x.400 connector. They are in seperate untrusted nt domains. Does anyone know
of a helpful article? I can't seem to find one...
Thanks,
J
_
List postin
I am trying to get an X.400 connection working between a server in a
Exchange 5.5 Org and a Exchange 2000 server in an AD domain - all test
environment.
I am certain I have something misconfigured as I have the logging turn all
the way up and see "connection refused". I have trie
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
