Search results for query: *

The reverse lookup thing will slow down your mail server, in my opinion it is not necessary, and could be dangerous to use in some cases. I do not think it is recommended. The reason why the problem you are having, to elaborate, is because earthlink's firewall does not accept UDP packets bigger...

Do not change your Exchange 2003 settings, this is not the recommeded way. I did that and started getting different errors. Active directory integrated with forwarders is the recommended setup for Exchange 2003 in your case. It is not an Exchange 2003 issue, yet a Windows 2003 DNS issue...

I called MS and found this out. The problem is that EarthStink does not have their firewall set up right. They cannot accept UDP packets bigger then 512K on their firewalls. The fix is do disable EDNS on Windows 2003 DNS Server. Please see: http://support.microsoft.com/?id=832223

One of my users with an open wireless home network told me that she suddenly started seeing sentances being typed in her email, and she was not the one doing it. Is it possible that this could be overlap from another wireless network, say if someone was on the same channel? Would you think it...

Nevermind, it is fixed now, thanks!

I am not sure if I am missing something, but I cannot make a connection to the exchange server. It just seems to timeout. Is my IPPOOL ok to use? Thanks! PIX Version 6.3(3) interface ethernet0 auto interface ethernet1 100full nameif ethernet0 outside security0 nameif ethernet1 inside...

Good news, it was the ISP fault. FIrst i turned off Proxy arp. That didnt do it. I turned it back on, it works

i think it has to have something to do with the proxy, i tried to hook up ISA server, and it is stating that it cannot bind to port 25 on that IP address. This is not good. I think it is the ISP that needs to step in on this maybe...

i am thinking i need something like: nat 0 access-list 101

I can surf the internet, but no email... PIX Version 6.3(3) interface ethernet0 auto interface ethernet1 100full nameif ethernet0 outside security0 nameif ethernet1 inside security100 enable password encrypted passwd encrypted hostname pixfirewall domain-name group.com fixup protocol dns...

I am trying to figure out the same thing.. Maybe? access-list inbound permit tcp any host 231.232.82.34 eq ssh I generated a ca Key ca generate rsa key 2048 For <key_modulus_size> >= 1024

I got my smartnet for a 501 3DES for $75, although I have smartnet for a 506e, 515UR, 3550, Failover and other equipment. If the Client only comes with a concentrator, how are you supposed to hook up to a 3DES VPN on the pix firewall :) Just accept the client VPN licensing as a mystery. My CCO...

OK, I will use a different VPN range. I wonderer if I need an LMHOST file? I am going to try it this weekend. Thanks again.

I recall the KEYLength for one of the setting has to be above 1000. Maybe you did not set it high enough? Was it for MD5? I hope I am not confusing you.

I am not sure, are you running XP firewall? make sure you are not running that. What is the device you use the connect to the internet? Maybe that is not complient with IPSEC, I am just guessing at your problem. To open a port, you need access to the device. sometimes you can access it by typing...

Is it acceptable to use the same range as your LAN in the IP POOL? I have a Cisco 501. Can you give me the good and the bad about using the same overlaping IP addresses? For instance. I am using the VPN client 4.x with IPSEC on a 501 3DES. IP Pool 192.168.100.1-192.168.100.50 Local lan...

for a very very small office Cisco 501 = under 500$ 1720 Router = under 800$ CCO Account (to get software) = under 100$ Medium office Cisco 506e = $1000 1720 Router = 800$ CCO access(to get software) = 250$ If you only have 1 public IP, you may not need the router. You can just use the Cisco...

if IPSEC is running in windows, and then you try to run IPSEC from Cisco, it should not cause a problem. Cisco IPSEC has a higher priority level then the windows IPSEC. Unlike checkpoint, where Windows IPSEC will throw a monkey wrench in the operation. Besides, i dont think XPhome has IPSEC on...

I am working on getting my firewall setup with the same situation. I have a few public IPs all from the same block which I need to listen to all 3 on the outside interface. (all in the same CIDR block). The problem is that I do not have access to the router, its the ISPs. I will try to allow...

maybe you need a rule to bypass nat?