Pages

Search

Share a public exchange 2003 calendar over web, HOW? - Microsoft Exchange

Share a public exchange 2003 calendar over web, HOW? - Microsoft Exchange

Share a public exchange 2003 calendar over web, HOW?

Posted: 29 Jan 2005 02:58 PM PST

Great, I got it to work (but requires a password) and had to mess with the
URL's for a while before I stumbled onto the right combination for our
organization and subfolders so here it is:

http://tull.biggs.org/public/busd/bhs_calendar/

So now the obvious question is, how do I get rid of the need for a name and
password so that web-public or any users can more easily get in to see the
calendar. I could easily create a user name in Exchange like "public" and a
password of "public" but would rather they not be asked for any name and
password. Is that possible? Is there a way to assign "anonymous" to not
use a password? I don't know who the anonymous user would be, there isn't
one in Exchange of course. I thought I could assign IIS-USER or GUEST
as a way to get in, but the way you described to assign rights only looks at
the list of Exchange users, not Win2k3 local or domain users. Any ideas?
Do I need to enable guest or IIS_User some more rights on the W2K3 machine,
not necessarily in Exchange user rights?

Thanks for the help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dave Niemeyer
-----------------------------------

"Brian Desmond [MVP]" <cps.k12.il.us> wrote in message
news:phx.gbl...
 
a 
web. 
or 
COULD 
situtaion. 
there 
folder, 
server??? 

Using Exchange SMTP

Posted: 29 Jan 2005 08:59 AM PST

Tom Sawyer wrote: 

Sure it does - you have a public IP, right?
 

I suggest you ditch POP and host your own mail. See
http://www.msexchange.org/tutorials/MF002.html for more info. The way you're
doing things now is slow, inefficient, decentralized, probably $, and means
you can't take advantage of a lot of features of Exchange, such as OWA, Out
of Office, etc....
 

That isn't a problem if change your configuration as above, and make sure
all you have in the Outlook profile is your Exchange server.
 

Yep.... 

See above; hope it helps. If you don't want these users to be able to
send/receive Internet mail, there are ways to control that, too. 

Exchange and SAN Storage

Posted: 28 Jan 2005 10:01 AM PST

Paul puts a lot of detail and examples in his recent article found here:
http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/45137/45137.html

Another good best practice would be to remember that there is no magic
bullet when it comes to SAN. Many of the same concepts of sizing for direct
attached storage still apply regardless of what a vendor will tell you.
I've complained before about a vendor, EMC setting those kinds of
expectations at my company.

Using a SAN often indicates that you want to scale the user-densities
cost-justify putting it on the SAN in the first place. If you're not going
to scale much (maybe only put a thousand on a server instead) then I
wouldn't worry as much about the layout if you still want to go to a SAN.

For scalability, SANs aren't a tremendous help in terms of performance
because Exchange is cache-unfriendly. Be prepared to use a lot of spindles
to achieve scalability. They are good for addressing more disks in a more
reliable way. They also have software that can be useful in some situations
depending on the requirements.

For me, the more I deal with EMC the more I become a fan of HP when it comes
to FC SANs. I haven't tried the iSCSI sans yet for Exchange. If I ever get
a chance, I won't recommend EMC to anyone after the current experience. To
add to that, I don't have a lot of confidence in their brand name after:
http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/110613070692790.xml?nohio
In fairness, the claim may not even be true. But you know what, after the
grief I've gotten due to that company and their sales teams, I'll stay clear
and choose to believe the article at face value.

Don't get me wrong, SANs make a lot of sense if you want to scale and need
some other components that the SAN has to offer. If you're keeping it
small, keep it simple and keep it off the SAN. If it has to be large, it
should likely be on a SAN (when was the last time you deployed a 384 spindle
direct attached storage array, right?)

Last thought: when setting this up, make your SAN folks certify the
configuration from the HBA out because in order for it to work, the stars
have to align: the drivers have to be supported, the configuration has to be
supported, the firmware of the HBA's have to be supported, they have to be
zoned correctly, and the list goes on. Make you vendor/support team tell
you exactly what you need to be using and how it should be configured. I
tell all folks new to SAN technology the same thing :)

If there is something you need specifically, feel free to drop a note
offline. Exchange and SANs do work well together but they can be quite
complicated with lots of moving parts. And there's plenty of FUD to get
hung up on; don't believe any of it.



Al



"David Wilhoit [Exchange MVP]" <nospam> wrote in message
news:%phx.gbl... 

Rename Exchange 2000 member server???

Posted: 28 Jan 2005 05:57 AM PST

Eric Olmstead wrote: 

You could set up a temporary "swing box", move mailboxes, replicate PFs,
then rebuild the original server as you wish - then move everything back. Of
course, you'd make good backups first! 

RPC over HTTP - Help

Posted: 27 Jan 2005 05:04 PM PST

Assumption is dead on and install a copy of the signing CA (just the public
half) to the Local Computer's Trusted Root Authority.

Not sure if you are running a single or fe/be setup, but I have found the
whitepapers at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/2003/library/ex2k3rpc.mspx
very helpful in setting up rpc over https. (it may help you spot other
areas since i hit the highlights that tend to be the most problematic.)

"Joseph Mouhanna" <com> wrote in message
news:dIhKd.2989$.. 

Exchange 2003 lossing mailboxs and more!!!

Posted: 27 Jan 2005 10:33 AM PST

Are your exchange 2003 & 5.5 connected to each other?

"Mark Arnold [MVP]" <org> wrote in message
news:com... 

Web based newsgroup

Posted: 27 Jan 2005 09:03 AM PST

"Andrew" <microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:com... 

www.toastforums.com seems to work well.

Lee.

--
___________________________________

Outlook Web Access for PDA and WAP:
www.leederbyshire.com
___________________________________

Cannot access mailbox through OWA

Posted: 26 Jan 2005 12:23 PM PST

818709, I do apologize, I was not even thinking about OWA 5.5, for some
reason my mind defaults to 2000 or 2003 <g>

That will do it, you must have accessed that mailbox with Outlook 2003 which
writes a new Calendar Property that OWA 5.5 can not handle, until you patch
it.

Good job on the research and sorry for assuming.

--
Tim Hackbart M.C.S.E.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Please do not send email directly to this alias. This alias is for newsgroup
purposes only.

"MF" <microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:com... 
Patch 
that 
Then 
importing 
and 
rights. 
newsgroup 
hangs 
The 
others 

Autocomplete with Public Address Book

Posted: 26 Jan 2005 10:37 AM PST

Rob K wrote: 

That's correct - what other ones do you see in the drop-down menu? 

Unable to backup Mailboxes

Posted: 26 Jan 2005 04:21 AM PST

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 03:05:03 -0800, Khimji
<microsoft.com> wrote:
 

ntbackup.exe is provided by Microsoft, free, to backup servers and
workstations. When you install Exchange on a server or the Exchange
Admin components anywhere the original ntbackup is replaced in favour
of an Exchange aware app. It's free and inbuilt. 

What account does the backup application connect to the server as?
Have you followed all the guidelines to connect the account and
configure the account with sufficient rights. The fact that a trusted
domain exists is irrelevant in this situation. 

Ah, the Administor of the 2003 domain does not have rights by default
on Exchange 

Research "Recovery Storage Group"

 

How big should the DB and Logs partitions be?

Posted: 25 Jan 2005 02:54 PM PST

Any consideration for additional space needed in order to run eseutil or
restore the exchange database from your backup solution?

"Fred Yarbrough" <com> wrote in message
news:phx.gbl... 

mailbox storage limit exceeded notification?

Posted: 25 Jan 2005 10:54 AM PST

johndoe wrote: 

It's supposed to send them an email when they hit any of the triggers. Are
you sure it isn't? Can you reproduce this, if it isn't? 

Recover Deleted emails

Posted: 25 Jan 2005 09:10 AM PST

Catamount wrote: 

My stars. Your mail store must be enormous. I don't do anything beyond 30
days, regardless of user intelligence!

Defrag

Posted: 24 Jan 2005 11:55 AM PST

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:27:02 -0800, "Casey"
<microsoft.com> wrote:
 

I know what you meant and still question daily!
You can do it without problems to logs and stores, although make sure
the backup doesn't kick in during the defrag run.

Still can't see why you want to defrag daily.

ExchangeIS Mailbox Store

Posted: 24 Jan 2005 09:19 AM PST

I have looked long and hard and have not found any resolution to this.
ISINTEG did not solve the problem for me. Also an upgrade from 5.5. Are you
still getting the error or did you resolve it?

"Boosan" wrote:
 

Exchange and 2 DC question

Posted: 24 Jan 2005 09:17 AM PST

we have all linux apache web servers at our co-location, this DNS box provides non-dynamic DNS for those servers (as well as a secondary linux DNS box actually at the co-lo). Our internal Windows DNS servers do not know about those sites without that DNS and they do forward to it, but it doesn't like to send updates back, hence we use it as DNS as well to hit those sites. Our DNS servers have zones for those web domains as a few are company domains that utilize domain names like exchange.company.com or vpn.company.com externally/internally that the linux DNS server also do not know about...

Essentially getting the Windows and Linux folks to stay in tune with each other around here is next to impossible, so we improvise...

--
Scott
"ptwilliams" <com> wrote in message news:phx.gbl...
Glad to have helped!!!

However...

If the Linux box isn't authorative for the namespace that maps to the domain-name then you shouldn't be pointing to it at all. What is it's purpose? If it's used for external name resolution, you should consider using forwarders and/ or a proxy server.

--

Paul Williams

http://www.msresource.net/
http://forums.msresource.net/

"Scott McDonald" <com> wrote in message news:phx.gbl...
I found the exchange server itself was using DNS from the DC that went down and a linux DNS server...I think this is why it happened, I updated that to also point to the other DC for DNS as well and the linux DNS as a 3rd DNS server.

In the directory access tab (you said services, but I think it's access in 2003?), it shows both DC's for domain controllers and global catalogs, and one DC as a configuration DC, so I think it's okay there.

Thanks!

--
Scott
"ptwilliams" <com> wrote in message news:phx.gbl...
The roles don't really have much bearing on this (the PDCe does for legacy clients, but I'll not go into that). The important thing to understand here is that there are two critical aspects: DNS and Global Catalog. The latter is pointless without the former being available to locate it.

All of your DNS clients should point to at least two (internal, authorative) DNS servers. You should also have a minimum of two GCs (and at least one per site). In a single domain environment, or small forest, it is a good idea to have all DCs as GCs.

I'm no exchange expert by any means, so I'll leave the exchange side of this to the exchange guru's. I'll just say this: Exchange relies on the GCs. There's a Directory Service tab in the properties that shows which GCs it knows of and will use.

Does your Exchange box point to two DNS servers, and is it listing more than on GC in the directory services tab?

Are the DNS servers both up-to-date with the applicable SRV records?


--

Paul Williams

http://www.msresource.net/
http://forums.msresource.net/

"Scott McDonald" <com> wrote in message news:uD%phx.gbl...
We have 2 domain controllers and one of them went down this weekend (hardware problem) and our exchange server followed it a few hours later. My understanding is this is the exact reason why you'd want 2 domain controllers, so exchange (and others) wouldn't freak out when one domain controller goes down for whatever reason. Why would this happen? How could I prevent this in the future? By the way, the 2nd domain controller was found to be on a bad APC/UPS a few months ago and as a result was shutting off frequently, exchange never had a problem with that one going down (it's the secondary though, no master roles but does have a copy of GC, the one from this weekend had all master roles and both do DNS).

Any info on this would be appreciated. Thanks

--
Scott

Anyone use Blacklists?

Posted: 24 Jan 2005 06:53 AM PST

I use the same product and have had good success in our environment using the
following:

dnsbl.njabl.org
sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org

I was using bl.spamcop.net, but it seemed to be duplicating the work of the
other two. We were getting a ton of porn spam from Korea and China (not good
in a school), so I set up korea.blackholes.us as the third blacklist and we
are seeing significant results (the good kind).

I also am evaluating the Brightmail antispam component that is being offered
with the SMTP for Gateways product, and it works very well, but it may not
fit into the budget, unfortunately.

"Acoustix" wrote:
 

Exchange 5.5 maximum message limit

Posted: 24 Jan 2005 05:42 AM PST

Do a message tracking on one of the failed messages since I have a sinking
suspicion that it is the recipients mail server that is failing the message.
(The X-Postfix line is what makes me think that it passed correctly thru the
Exchange system.)

"Jason Fell" <net> wrote in message
news:ct54to$m67$1$demon.co.uk... 

Exchange 2003 Trial, how many days left?

Posted: 23 Jan 2005 06:49 PM PST

Yeah I noticed that if you just open the Exchange System Manager you can
pull up properties on the store and the server which give you a creation
date as well. I didn't install it however so I can only assume it's the 120
day version but I have no clue how many versions MS put out not to mention
still don't know how crippled it gets afterwards.


"Sheyi Adenouga [MSFT]" <microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%phx.gbl... 
to 
rights. 

Restoring a public information store (pub1.edb) to a new server

Posted: 23 Jan 2005 05:02 AM PST

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:50:26 -0800, Andrew Mitchell
<vic.gov.au> wrote:
 
 

Thanks for the info Andrew,

I'm finding the eseutil flags a bit confusing. Which one would you
recommend using?

All the best,
Jon

net stop msexchange not work

Posted: 22 Jan 2005 06:21 AM PST

at work i can just type net stop msexchange on a SBS box
maybe doesnt work with server 2003

cheers


"neo [mvp outlook]" wrote:
 

best practises during exchange 2k3 server standard edition deploym

Posted: 22 Jan 2005 12:41 AM PST

We are planning on using a HP Proliant server for this purpose. If you can
advice on which one is stable & good performance wise. what would be the
ideal HDD space for 200 users & what kind of disk arrays is advisable mirror
raid5e etc.

i have read a few say put logs on 1 mirror set the db on another n the store
on another. is this advisable or is there a standard for this kind of
deployment.

im thinking of going for the enterprise package.

im relatively new to the exchange environment so please pardon the naiveness
of my queries.

thanks & kind regards



"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:
 

Good book recommendations for Exchange 2003 Newbie?

Posted: 22 Jan 2005 12:27 AM PST

Hi.

Try this link
http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/techinfo/training/default.asp . It's also
worth scolling down to the part where it has Virtual Labs.

"Paul-K" wrote:
 

mailserver won't talk to another mailserver in same office

Posted: 21 Jan 2005 11:35 AM PST

Now I'm seeing that the non-exchange server is saying that the domain for the
exchange server can't be found. This is impossible, since mail from outside
of the network flows fine. DNS is resovlable and does point correctly to the
exchange server. The exchange server, the non-exchange server, and my dns
server are all behind my firewall and configured at a 192.X.X.X address.

"Sheyi Adenouga [MSFT]" wrote: