Re: SMTP routing issue
- From: "David Lutz" <DavidLutz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:31:04 -0700
Brilliant! That's exactly what I was looking for! I apologise for not reading
your first reply thoroughly.
"Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]" wrote:
> Then basically the solution is to follow the knowledge base article I posted the link to for the Brisbane SBS server
>
> --
> Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
> -------------------------------------------------
> Please do not email me directly for assistance. Reply only in the Newsgroups for the benefit of everyone
> "David Lutz" <DavidLutz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:21BC4C1A-666F-44AB-9989-C104F43E2F3B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> "Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]" wrote:
>
> > On the SBS 2003 server in Sydney, Start the Exchange System Manager
>
> ** Um.... the Sydney server is Exchange 5.5 on NT4, not SBS 2003.
>
> I'm sorry, perhaps I didn't explain myself too well.
>
> > Expand Servers
> > Expand Protocols
> > Expand SMTP
> > Right Click on the Default SMTP Virtual Server
> > Click on the Messages Tab
> > in the bottom text box labeled "Forward all mail with unresolved recipients to host"
> > Put in "bris.loc.com.au"
> >
> > This will work fine for mail coming in from the outside.
>
> bris.loc.com.au is the branch office.
> The issue isn't one of an unresolved recipient.
>
> >
> > But what if you want to mail each other?
>
> The Brisbane office (Exchange 2003) has Contacts set up for all users on the
> Sydney server, including the Brisbane users. This is to allow centralised
> control and scanning.
>
> The Sydney server (Exchange 5.5) has a Global Recipient set up for all the
> Brisbane users.
>
> That works fine from Sydney. It's when sending emails from Brisbane to
> Sydney that we get the error:
>
> "A configuration error in the e-mail system caused the message to
> bounce between two servers or to be forwarded between two recipients.
> Contact your administrator. "
>
> The problem is with the Default/Reply address of the Brisbane users
> (@bris.loc.com.au). If it is set to the Global Recipient address on the
> Sydney server (@loc.com.au) (which then forwards the emails to the alternate
> Brisbane address of @bris.loc.com.au) the above error is produced.
>
>
>
> > This article should help you with that
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;319759
> >
> > --
> > Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > Please do not email me directly for assistance. Reply only in the Newsgroups for the benefit of everyone
> > "David Lutz" <DavidLutz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:BAACC6AD-D776-44F2-BBBD-117BDE1E48AD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > We have two offices, one in Sydney and one in Brisbane.
> >
> > The Sydney office is the main office and the email addresses there are
> > mail.loc.com.au
> > The Brisbane office is a branch office and the email addresses there are
> > mail.bris.loc.com.au
> >
> > Sydney is Exchange 5.5 and Brisbane is Exchange 2003.
> >
> > There is no link between the two offices.
> >
> > When Brisbane was Exchange 5.5, we could set the reply address to
> > [name]@loc.com.au and the mail would then be routed through our Sydney
> > server, where we forwarded it to the [name]@bris.loc.com.au.
> >
> > This is so that we can virus and spam scan the emails before they are
> > forwarded to the Brisbane office.
> >
> > Since upgrading to SBS 2003, we can no longer set the default reply address
> > of users on the Brisbane server to the Sydney server (@loc.com.au). It
> > results in :
> >
> > "A configuration error in the e-mail system caused the message to
> > bounce between two servers", etc.
> >
> > I have searched for answers but have not been able to find one yet.
> >
> > I would greatly appreciate it if anyone can help me with this! The company
> > policy is that all users must have an email address on the Sydney server
> > (@loc.com.au), so this address must be the reply address when Brisbane users
> > send emails
.
- Prev by Date: Re: GPO not enforced with new updates site(?) what about validatio
- Next by Date: Re: 1005/DSRESTOR error after SP1
- Previous by thread: Re: GPO not enforced with new updates site(?) what about validatio
- Next by thread: Re: 1005/DSRESTOR error after SP1
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|