Pages

Search

All services disabled Exchange 2007 - Microsoft Exchange

All services disabled Exchange 2007 - Microsoft Exchange

All services disabled Exchange 2007

Posted: 09 Sep 2008 09:42 PM PDT

Thanks Mark...

And yes, we have automatic updates set. I also noted that the server had
been restarted about 1:00am - that would all tie in together.

It sure would be interested to know what the intention of the Rollup 4 was.

I think we might turn off the auto updates at least for the immediate future!

Best regards from Down Under (Sydney, Australia)
Michael

"Mark Murphy" wrote:
 

external access to Exchange other than OWA

Posted: 09 Sep 2008 09:17 PM PDT

Before anyone replies, I have since found several articles explaining what I
need so I'm closing this as of now, thanks to everyone anyway.

All the best.

"Bazzar" wrote:
 

Antivirus Solutions

Posted: 09 Sep 2008 01:05 PM PDT

ColTom2 wrote: 


I had problems with AVG. First, the built-in firewall tended to block
too much stuff that it should already know about (such as MSN Messenger).

Secondly, when I tried to run the Cisco VPN client, I got a BSoD with
AVG running. Duplicated this on 3 different computers, both with XP and
Vista. Removing AVG solved the problem - and it did not reoccur when I
switched to something else (in my case, Symantec EP).

--

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
edu Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes

NDR Invalid Recipient generated for valid user

Posted: 09 Sep 2008 08:46 AM PDT

No, all email communication is done using SMTP.

"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:
 

Hide sender address

Posted: 09 Sep 2008 04:50 AM PDT

Please allow me to suggest that you'll be removing this address from your
GAL within a couple of days after recipients tire of the stream of smart-
comments. Sometimes anonymity isn't a good thing.
--
Ed Crowley MVP
"There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."
..

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

MS Exchange Server-All Out going Email rejected!

Posted: 08 Sep 2008 01:49 PM PDT

Sorry for the delay in me responding! Work yesterday has been crazy! To let
you all know I am not very tech savy. So most of what you have wrtoe back and
forth means nothing to me! I am printing this thread to show our I.T. guy
this morning. If you prefer here is my work number where you can reach me.
925.256.6454 ext #12. My name is Kian (key-on). Thanks !!

"Venger" wrote:
 

communigate & exchange

Posted: 08 Sep 2008 10:36 AM PDT

Hey Rafavic,

sorry but I don't know how communigate excactly works.
 

Definitely it isn't possible with communigate's client software to
gain access to Exchange mailbox resources. So I think a classic front-/
backend szenario is hardly to realize.

I guess, a simple communigate smarthost for incoming and outgoing
mails will work, but .. 

Exchange has it keyfeatures in handling mails, providing access via
Outlook, browser, handhelds, (telephone) and so on, and not in sending
fax. But there are several other implementations for additional
services. Why do you use Communigate Pro? You should ask your
customer, which features he is missing in Communigate and Exchange and
think about how to implement this features (maybe with 3rd party
tools).

Greets

Protocol Exchange uses to send mail between Exchange servers?

Posted: 07 Sep 2008 04:22 AM PDT

RPC is used only to put the mail into the mailbox server by the hub
transport server. Mail is routed within the organization between hub
transport servers using SMTP.
--
Ed Crowley MVP
"There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."
..

"Spin" <com> wrote in message
news:individual.net... 

Exchange 2003 unreliable receiving emails

Posted: 06 Sep 2008 06:39 PM PDT

Hi Russ, I am Electronic Engineer and all my life people have come to me with
gadget problems that go away the moment I get near them... nice to have some
little miracles in life now and then

"Russ (www.SBITS.Biz)" wrote:
 

Questions about Ex07 disk config (GPT and multiple LUNs)

Posted: 05 Sep 2008 09:43 PM PDT

"Mike O." <com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:%phx.gbl...
 

A larger pool of drives doesn't automatically balance physical data
positions between them... a single big hit on a single database file could
keep all of your drives busy without a significant performance improvement,
whereas if that file was "confined" to a single spindle, the other ones
would be free to do their work.
 

This is true. But how big are those databases going to be?
If you use, say, 4x200 GB disks in a RAID 10 setup for each array, you'll
have 400 GB available for each database; if your database grows up to 350
GB, that would anyway be a good time to split it, so a bigger disk space
would be somewhat useless.
 

I really don't know this topic in detail; but the whole MBR/GPT issue is
anyway only related to disk *partitioning*: the filesystem stays NTFS. So
this looks quite a trivial issue to me, as those disks are going to have a
single big partition each.
 

That's a perfectly reasonable approach :-)


Massimo

No free/busy information

Posted: 03 Sep 2008 10:16 AM PDT

Click on Start >> Run >> Outlookk /cleanfreebusy

"Hugo" wrote: