then nothing for a week. It
is most bizarre.
Overall, everything works perfectly.
Cheers
Gavin
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 26/11/2001 at 5:07 PM Daniel Chenault wrote:
>By 1018 do you mean a -1018?
>
>First thing I'd do is check the system log for SCSI errors.
1. Tool is available from PSS
2. It may or may not work.
3. All data in the PST may or may not still exist after running it.
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Staines" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 10:56 AM
Subject: .ps
It's best to not let external hierarchies dictate how technological
solutions are developed.
What is the point of this exercise? What do you hope to gain? Is there a
desired end result towards which you are working? What are the perceived
business benefits?
Answer those first.
- Original Me
FAQ
- Original Message -
From: "Saravanan Narayanan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 9:12 AM
Subject: I need recommendations for a good exchange virus scanner
> Hi,
>
> Can you give me a good virus scanner for the exc
And there is nothing in Kelly's reply that implies otherwise. She answered
his question and pointed him to appropriate resources.
Your reply, on the other hand, rather strongly hints at that of someone
spoiling for a fight.
- Original Message -
From: "Elizabeth Farrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED
If she has trouble with that, wait until she sees a picture of you and finds
that you are an astoundingly lovely woman. That should rile her to no end.
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 11:57 AM
The worms of that sort don't stop at the first address. You'd have to add n
bogus addresses, then the hackers write it to address n+x, so you add n+x,
then they do N+x+y. Lather, rinse, repeat. It's false security.
Tell the user to let you do your job and stop telling you how to do it.
- Ori
It uses what it uses. Each implementation will be different.
- Original Message -
From: "Tener, Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 9:17 AM
Subject: Store.exe
> I would like to know what everyones average mem usage
yes
yes
- Original Message -
From: "Aaron Brasslett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 3:00 PM
Subject: Standard to Enterprise
> I'm seeing mixed opinions in the archives about the best way to upgrade
> Exchange 5.5 Standa
Then again the part of the RFC discussing this uses "should" rather than
"must."
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Scharff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 8:15 AM
Subject: RE: ORB UK - cross post - long
> I tested betw
Note that relays are specifically mentioned in 2821. In the discussion of
relaying the bottom line is that a relay is not expected to do much of
anything at all, though it _should_ do xyz and _may_ do abc.
What he should be testing on is the return of the NDR.
- Original Message -
From:
Now that I have a better understanding of this one person's configuration
with regards to his mail server being on the border, I can see where the
problems arose.
And I don't really quibble on the three criteria you posit as the way to
test for relay. I would point out, however, that the three te
Following the steps below will result in irrevocable mail loss. Both the
good and the bad.
- Original Message -
From: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 4:16 PM
Subject: RE: NEED HELP MTADATA!!
> S
I would try a manual send and if that also failed contact that domain's
postmaster.
- Original Message -
From: "Hooks, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 7:49 AM
Subject: 5.5.0 DNR
I am getting the message below back
compress log files, yes. compress databases, no. Just clarifying
- Original Message -
From: "Lefkovics, William" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 2:00 PM
Subject: RE: MDBDATA Log Files
> You could, in an emergency, comp
Each log if 5M in size. The logs will grow in that increment as messages are
passed. What is normal for you may not be normal for someone else. Relaying
does not create logs since the message does not pass through the store.
- Original Message -
From: "Skip Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
In order to send 8-bit data over a 7-bit system it is necessary to encode
that data. This level of abstraction has the downside of said encoding
resulting in an increase in size. The MIME algorithms attempt to contain
this growth but, mathematically, the MIME-encoded message _will_ grow.
About a
Sherry!
- Original Message -
From: "Lefkovics, William" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 8:31 PM
Subject: RE: MDBDATA Log Files
> I wonder how long it would take to compress say a 1
From: "Michael Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 3:51 PM
Subject: Administration Advice
> Hello,
>
> Myself being relatively new to Exchange 2000 Server Administration,
> am looking for some very brief advice as to what th
I can't remember the full wording; it's something about "running the IMS in
console mode"
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 1:30 PM
Subject: RE: Real Time SMTP monitoring
> Any
I used "IMC console"
XFOR: How to Use the Internet Mail Connector in Console Mode (Q181950)
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: Real Time SMTP monitori
Someone must have been behind on his KB writing metrics for a review period.
- Original Message -
From: "Lefkovics, William" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 6:32 PM
Subject: I guess it might be helpful.
> But does it nee
Need the ID number (1148) and the source as well as your server version.
- Original Message -
From: "Yamazaki, Satoko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 10:19 PM
Subject: Event ID 1148
> Hi all,
>
> I've found the Event ID 1
> time bummer.
>
> Any other ideas for Exchange 2000?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Daniel Chenault
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 5:39 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subje
Expect occasional high CPU spikage and/or heavy disk usage leading to users
complaining of poor performance.
- Original Message -
From: "m2web" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 3:35 PM
Subject: Exchange as WINS
> We hav
The easiest way would be to use a call to the directory to get this list of
all sites and all servers in those sites. This does assume, however, that
there is only one organization rather than the possibility of many that are
not officially known. There is a similar call to 2K but it goes to the A
When creating a connector one has the ability to make it org-wide, site-wide
or location-wide. You can assign this one server a location of
and then set the scope of the IMS to and you're done. Setting
this name () does not affect any other operations. Consider it a
meta-site.
- Original Me
They were delegates of the invitees.
- Original Message -
From: "McCready, Robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 1:55 PM
Subject: Meeting Request Confusion
> Exchange 5.5 SP4 using Outlook 98. NT 4.0 SP6a
>
> I hav
When you write him you may point out that postmaster is a required address.
- Original Message -
From: "Hunter, Lori" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 3:16 PM
Subject: RE: Message rejected
> I didn't think to try hostmas
No, that's not the cause.
More than likely you'll find the NDR arose from a user in your department
trying to relay through their server using POP3/IMAP client (both of which
use SMTP to send). The scope you're talking about only deals with who can
send _out_ your IMC.
- Original Message ---
is answer, due to stupidity.
>
> Jim Blunt
> "Some people's kids...books and books and books and books, and all they do
> is eat the covers!"
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 3
What, too good for edlin?
- Original Message -
From: "Andy David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 7:40 PM
Subject: RE: Message tracking tools
> What? Too good for Notepad?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jennif
ject: RE: Message tracking tools
> 1: @echo off
> 2: cls
> 3: prompt $p$g
> 4: path=c:\dos
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 8:54 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
>
Uh... maybe putting in the IP address range that IS allowed?
- Original Message -
From: "S Verne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 3:55 PM
Subject: Stopped Relaying, but now internal LAN user has problem (Exch 5.5)
> I m
Check the archives; the encoding used to send a message grows the message by
as much as 40%. Your 1.5Mg file would grow to 2.1M busting through the
limit.
- Original Message -
From: "Leo Ballester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January
Contractors in house
Noise, banging, dirt on the floor
Will end soon, I hope
- Original Message -
From: "Denis Baldwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 11:50 AM
Subject: no one send Haiku's on Friday?
> Is Haiku dying?
>
Fastest way would be to make an entry in the server's HOSTS file pairing the
old name with the new IP. Keep it until those items flush out.
- Original Message -
From: "Arch Willingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 12:52
items in IMS queue
> I'll make it worse...the old name was just an IP address. The guy that set
> it up used the ip address instead of a name. Will it still work?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 200
They have the preview pane turned on and left their clients up. Mail comes
in, preview pane "reads" it, it times out (default is five seconds I
believe) and the message is marked read.
- Original Message -
From: "Aristotle Zoulas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PRO
: No action.
>
> I scooted all of the messages over to a temp directory and re-started it.
It
> started fine. I stopped it and moved a few at a time and re-started it. A
> couple of the messages are causing the problem - any idea why?
>
> Arch
>
> -Original Message---
" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 2:18 PM
Subject: RE: Any way to change items in IMS queue
> Zippo!
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 11:33 AM
> To: Exchange Discussi
You mean other than Kegler-Brown?
- Original Message -
From: "Hooks, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 10:09 AM
Subject: SPAM Blocking List
Does anyone out there have a list they would be willing to post of domains
or
That procedure is called an MTAWipe. The old mtadata files that you have not
yet copied over contain undelivered mail; there's an article on how to
manually replay MTA .DAT files.
- Original Message -
From: "Michel, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
May not be the MTA; what AV are you running?
- Original Message -
From: "Friese, Casey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 1:14 PM
Subject: RE: IMS woes
> Ok, one other question as well. Myself as well as my boss wants to
There is a KB article on which ports to open. Putting OWA outside the
firewall is absolutely no different than having Outlook outside the
firewall; OWA and Outlook both use MAPI to connect to the server. A VPN
would be a better and more secure solution.
- Original Message -
From: "Phil" <
tion and was scanning both c$ and d$ with Norton.
As
> far as PSS and I could tell, this is probably what hosed it in the first
> place.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 3:02 PM
> To: Exchange Disc
If you're on 5.5 and using site connectors other servers won't connect to
this box using SMTP anyway. There is a way to allow users to use this
connector as a relay but there's no way to detect forged headers; once the
user is authenticated and/or his IP is filtered he can send anything he
wants.
Services will shut down when freespace drops below 10M. For a file that size
it is most likely that the conversion process was using the disk for
temporary storage.
- Original Message -
From: "Sandoval, LaCretia, Triaton/US" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED
gs. Planning, planning, planning.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> John Matteson; Exchange Manager
> Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards
> (404) 239 - 2981
> My toys! My toys! I can't do this job without my toys!
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Danie
protocol log to see if the remote host is being contacted at all and, if so,
how it is responding.
- Original Message -
From: "Sandoval, LaCretia, Triaton/US" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:16 PM
Subject: RE: File stu
there's a limit on rules; it's either 32 or 64k. That's not 32/64k of rules,
but of actual space used. Rules can be cut down in size by using
server-based distribution groups instead of local groups (as one example).
- Original Message -
From: "Dean Michael Dorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Not easily, no.
- Original Message -
From: "Ashraph, Elizabeth A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 3:19 PM
Subject: Change email dates
> Hi All,
> Due to an incorrect system date on the Exchange servers, all messages s
Fast, easy, cheap. Pick two.
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Scharff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 3:54 PM
Subject: RE: Change email dates
> That doesn't involve significant time, effort and possibly $? Not that
Then it won't be cheap.
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Blackstone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 4:35 PM
Subject: RE: Change email dates
> M fast and easy
>
After reinstalling the IMS, did you reapply the SP?
- Original Message -
From: "GJ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 3:59 AM
Subject: Fw: IMC Access Violation
> My exchange 5.5(SP3) IMS will not start with access violati
No need to be worried. Whether or not is is excessive is wholly your
decision based on your environment and the sizing of your server.
- Original Message -
From: "Blunt, James H (Jim)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 7:04
One server in each site will accomplish the task. Also I assume you mean the
SA account, not the admin account as specified in your subject.
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:54 PM
Subject: chang
Org, site and config are the three top levels.
- Original Message -
From: "Richard Southwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 5:42 AM
Subject: permission on exchange
> I am running Exchange 5.5 sp4. If I want to add, f
3. Dumpster storage
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Scharff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 6:31 PM
Subject: RE: IS Offline defrag- Mystery
> Well, a couple of things could account for it.
>
> 1. Single Instance sto
Uh offline compaction does just fine without online compaction ever
successfully completing. It just takes longer.
- Original Message -
From: "Exchange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 10:09 AM
Subject: RE: IS Offline
is recover white space. I guess if space is that critical for
> what ever reason, I would have to do it on a regular basis. Sounds like a
> resource strained server. e.i. No money
> - Original Message -
> From: "Daniel Chenault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Exch
acted it - got the 3GB back. This was an E2K
server.(compaction done on clients request). So...
-Per
-----Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Sunday, February 03, 2002 1:14 PM
Posted To: Exchange
Conversation: IS Offline defrag- Mystery
Subjec
ndicate any new instructions in regards to my original
> suggestion, i.e. defrag and emptying the dumpster all happens inside of
> online maintenance).
>
> -Per
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Posted At: Sunday, February 03, 2002 4:
Yes, follow the article.
A gooroo
- Original Message -
From: "Van Huissteden, Adriaan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 8:14 PM
Subject: Outlook Clients Hang after turning off one server
> Hi,
>
> HISTORY: We had an exc
Won't work for those OE clients. If you must enforce this then turn off
POP3/IMAP and force the users to Outlook where you can control the messages.
- Original Message -
From: "Neil Goodenough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2
k Clients Hang after turning off one server
> That means I have to visit 250 + workstations
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2002 1:28PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Re: Outlook Clients
I filed that as a bug due to the exploitive nature of it. Dev refused to
accept it.
Scenario: Joe sends a meeting request to Jim. Jim forwards it to Mark with
lots of uncomplimentary verbage. Mark reads it and thinks it comes from Joe.
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Perley-TM" <[EMAIL
Having done both I can tell you that it's like supporting Exchange twice.
Outlook has a lot of features and sometimes they don't work too good. Within
PSS the folks who support Outlook are a discrete group separate from the
Exchange server side.
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTE
I'm not too sure what directions you were given to follow but to create a
mailing list, called a DL in Exchange, you go into the admin program and
it's under the file menu.
- Original Message -
From: "Piotr Szymański" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent
RC is a particular level of beta software.
Run setup; the options should show.
- Original Message -
From: "Pillai, Raj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 12:51 PM
Subject: Exchange 2000 Software Question
>
> I am tryin
You are missing something. It's a command-line switch to be passed to the
setup program.
- Original Message -
From: "Pillai, Raj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 1:27 PM
Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Software Question
>
Do you mean the SMTP archive log? It's plain text; grep will do it as will
most any other text-file search utility.
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 12:59 PM
Subject: Archive message log
> Is
It's not the number of rules that is limited, it is the space in which those
rules can be saved. I can never remember if it's 32K or 64K.
Simplify your existing rules as much as you can, using server-based DLs
wherever possible.
- Original Message -
From: "Ed Esgro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T
Armchair coding. How quaint.
- Original Message -
From: "Rocky Stefano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 4:28 PM
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 rules
> That's a poor M$ excuse for improper design. Rules should be server-sid
Server-side they are stored in the user's mailbox. Client-side they are
stored in a PST.
- Original Message -
From: "Ed Esgro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 3:42 PM
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 rules
> I see,
> I am gu
> I thought they were stored in the *.rwz file and the user's mailbox. No?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 6:54 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Re: Exchange 5.5 rules
>
>
What part do you not understand?
- Original Message -
From: "John Q Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: Microsoft Security Bulletin MS02-003
> What does this mean?
>
> - John Q
>
> - Original
Not only has it been posted before it is a FAQ, the link for which is at the
bottom of every message.
- Original Message -
From: "Bob P. Antonietti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 6:54 AM
Subject: Your Mailbox is over it
The MTA on ServerA should reroute on it's own as long as the MTA on ServerB
is down.
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 3:28 AM
Subject: Mail Queued at MTA
> All Nt4 SP6a Exchange 5.5 SP4.
>
> Iv
The Exchange box is having difficulty resolving the (computer domain name of
the recipient). Send a mail to that recipient from within Exchange; if it
fails, troubleshoot DNS resolution on that box. If it succeeds, something is
wrong with the message as it leaves the sendmail box.
- Original
FAQ, link to which is at the bottom of this message.
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Goodman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 2:35 PM
Subject: Internet Mail recipients
> Hi, quick question.
>
> I have about 5 domains t
I'd prefer to see it on a separate box. It makes troubleshooting easier and
if your app is going to use MAPI running it on a client box as opposed to on
the server itself resolves some serious MAPI version errors. Write it as
tight as you can and a selling point is that it runs just fine on
yester
Disallow RTF to the Internet, a setting on the IMS.
- Original Message -
From: "wade robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 10:19 AM
Subject: win.dat attachments
> I have an Exchange 2000 server that includes several
Subject: RE: win.dat attachments
The key string is "Exchange Rich Text" or "Outlook Rich Text". Wherever
you see that, choose NOT Rich Text. This will result in not sending
winmail.dat. Incidentally, this has nothing to do with RTF at all.
David
-Original Message-
Fro
You don't. I went round and round with the Dev folks about this being a loss
of functionality. They said, essentially, "yeah, so what?"
- Original Message -
From: "Frost, Andy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 5:50 AM
Su
Outlook startup-up performance issues are almost always name resolution.
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Kuhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 9:23 AM
Subject: Server Slower Than Workstations
> If servers are slower
Which side of the firewall? On the dirty side you'd have to open the ports
described in a KB to allow client access; not a desirable state of affairs.
On the clean side (with an IIS server on the border) just port 80 and 443 if
you're using SSL.
- Original Message -
From: "Fred W. Macondr
They'll delete themselves, and NDR, when they timeout.
- Original Message -
From: "John Q Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: Setting SMTP Queue Monitor
> I have set my critical state threshold,
Uh.. yeah. That's kinda the purpose of an OST file (Offline STore).
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 1:26 PM
Subject: Using OST's on the road
> I was wondering is it was possiable to set up O
Why do you say "it seems to be" an open relay? What testing have you done?
- Original Message -
From: "Kim Schotanus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 8:24 AM
Subject: open relay
Hi,
I followed the steps described in
Somewhere there exists a mail loop. [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Somewhere along the way this got "expanded" (or
aliased) to [EMAIL PROTECTED] A DNS entry somewhere says this is to go
to a machine that believes it should go elsewhere and that elsewhere
believes it should go bac
ot; either always, never, or (the default) based on user settings.
The default "user" setting lets individual users set whether or not a
given recipient will get TNEF.
Disclaimer: This information is provided "as is" with no warranties.
David
-Original Message-
From
Exmerge, made by Microsoft.
- Original Message -
From: "Louanne Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:56 AM
Subject: util to export mail to psts
> I have heard that there is a utility to move mail from priv.edb
r...
How do I test it myself?
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 14 February, 2002 3:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: open relay
Why do you say "it seems to be" an open relay? What testing have you
done?
- Original Message
None that I've ever seen. In essence it shouldn't be too difficult a
development project; walk the tree and make note of the types of
attachments.
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Christopher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 14,
, don't know how to...
the hostmaster at our ISP has done a test and was able to send mail via
our server...
How do I test it myself?
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 14 February, 2002 3:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: open relay
If it went out the IMS, there's no way short of putting the DL in the BCC
line. That's how SMTP works.
- Original Message -
From: "Tim John - Domainz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 1:33 PM
Subject: Email Addresses
>
Looks pretty clear to me.
552 is a serious error and is coming from the receiving server (per
RFC-2821). "Too much mail data" == "message too large"
Obviously the receiving domain has an inbound message size limit.
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Goodman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Excha
Best advice? Get familiar with the Outlook Object Model. Second-best advice?
Pay someone to write such an animal for you. Seriously.
- Original Message -
From: "Dean Michael Dorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 3:00 P
But if he could, what would be his average air velocity?
- Original Message -
From: "Andy David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 3:05 PM
Subject: RE: IS = mailbox store
> It's not a question of where he grips it, it's
301 - 400 of 835 matches
Mail list logo
