Using Exchange as a message store only?

[Albion]

I would like to use our Exchange server as a message store only. Out E-Mail runs through an SMTP server on a Unix box and my users connect to it with Internet E-Mail Service (MAPI) in Outlook 2000. My guys are already screaming about e-mail and how unreliable it is, but it's necessary. So a second mailbox is just going to confuse them more.

The problem I am having is that when my people add a local user to the To: or Cc: line it tried to send the mail to the exchange server especially if they grab the address from the GAL. This really isn't that bad of a problem but every once in a while a user will get a reply from System Administrator stating, "No transport provider was available for this recipient." The error will happen on both the To: recipient who is usually at external internet address and the Cc: line who is usually someone in our firm. If I click on the Re-Send button 999 times out of 1000 it will send the mail out just fine.

I found an article in TechNet (Q253490) dealing with Delivery Order and the such but the solution they gave of having multiple accounts is not acceptable to me guys.

Is there any way to turn off e-mail in exchange all together and just use the message store? I know that this is turning off 90% of what Exchange is, but I just don’t need it. Or is there a way to make the Addresses in the GAL go to Internet Mail instead of Exchange Mail?

Craig [sig][/sig]

 

[Xybertron]

What you are saying is confusing but if I understand it right I have a solution. Answer this...

Your users are in a NT Domain along with the Exchange server and connect to it with Outlook? The mail for them is on the Exchange server? Do they use the Exchange server to send SMTP?

You can hide the mailbox from the Global list and place custom recipients in it instead to point to an internet mail address. That is one solution but I am still trying to figure out why...

Dan
[sig][/sig]

 

[Albion]

My frustration with this problem is making me start to babble incoherently.

Correct, I have an NT domain behind a NAT that contains my Outlook clients and Exchange. I have a Unix box which is the NAT server/Web Server/SMTP server. All Internet e-mail comes in through that Unix box. I want the Exchange server just as a storage area for e-mails that my users get over the Internet.

I have solved one of my problems which was deleting the x.400 address in the mailboxes. But I still continue to have a problem with the "No Transport protocol available..." error that I get every so often. It seems that Exchange Server Service and Internet E-Mail Service in Outlook doesn't like each other much, is this true?

So I am not stuck with 2 weeks of Exchange knowledge and the task of making my Exchange Server an intermediate between the clients and my SMTP server. I have no clue how to do this and the Training Manual I got from Microsoft (all 1000 pages of it) makes it even more overwhelming.

-cm
[sig][/sig]

 

[schlake]

if you are routing all mail through your unix box and treating it as mapi or pop3 then i dont understand why you even have an exchange server...just use the clients and direct their accts to the unix ip...i dont see what purpose exchange is serving you here ... [sig][/sig]

 

[Albion]

Exchange is being used as an E-Mail message store.

My salespeople send quotes through e-mail and they want to keep their sent items around. Incase they get run over by a car with their laptops in hand (Worst case scenario of course) we have a copy of the quote. It's very easy for a customer to come in and say, "Wait a second he only quoted me $100,000." Without a copy of the quote we're SOL.

My Designers like to keep old e-mail around so they can have proof of changes a customer made. Customer says, "Hey we didn't make those changes!" Designer answers, "Well sure you did, here's a copy of the e-mail your guys sent." And, because anyone could get that call everyone involved would need access to those e-mails.

Keeping mail in large PST files (One was a gig) is a bad idea especially without workstation backups.

So I installed Exchange to act as a public message store to solve those problems. It solves a few other problems but they aren’t relevant right now.

-cm

[sig][/sig]

 

[Xybertron]

Removing X.400 addresses is easy. Go into configuration and then site addressing select site addressing tab and uncheck X.400 and with it still unchecked click on the remove button. This will also keep new accounts from getting an X.400 address automatically.

I am still confused on why you don't just use Exchange and get rid of the unix SMTP. Is there some reason you can't do this?

Dan

[sig][/sig]

 

[Albion]

The answer is, because my Exchange server cannot go on the Internet. I had a hard enough time assuring them that putting it behind a firewall and NAT was safe. Since the Exchange server will store important confidential documents they refuse to allow it anywhere near the Internet. After a while I assured them that our Firewall is sufficient to stop 95% of the attacks out there so they allowed it only if it were behind the firewall. *Paranoia*

The reason I run Linux is because it's free and it will run an equivalent task on half the power as NT. I can run an SMTP server on Linux with 500 users on less then 128meg of ram and p133, where as Exchange won't do it with less then a gig and Pentium II. But the main reason is because it's hard to get money for new hardware and servers in my company. So I take old hardware and make Linux servers.
*Tight*

So with top-level company policy making me put anything that can store company documents behind the firewall and with the lack of money I had to put SMTP on the Linux server. And, I don't trust port forwarding so I refuse to port forward the mail to Exchange.

-cm
[sig][/sig]

 

[Xybertron]

Well Exchange isn't that power hungry. I have ran 1500 users off a Dual Pentium 200 Pro with 256 MB Ram. It liked to run at 100% usage but it ran great. It all depends on how you setup what you have. I am contemplating your setup and should have an answer today.

Dan [sig][/sig]

 

[schlake]

It sounds like the true problem here is not technical in nature but process oriented. Sounds like you have no knowledge management systems in place so e-mail is acting as your record. Over time thats going to be a real burden on your space capacity and your system admin. Sounds like your project managers or consultant need to create some project change/addendum process and make the clients sign off on it. E-mail transmissions don't always hold up in court. A smart admin can make an email to appear to have come from anywhere and said anything, you know... KM software captures project data as well as behavioral data which is vital for sales and marketing efforts...You should educate your company on this and invest in a good KM or SFA application. If they are so fearful of a hack, it doesn't make sense to keep all the data in a store that is universally noted as one of the most hackable systems (pertaining to e-mail in general). At least with special applications there are additional logins and barriers to cut through beyond the network security level. I feel for your situation. [sig][/sig]

 

[Albion]

This is where it turns into a politics issue. When the salesguy who makes 80% of the companies profit says he wants to do something a certain way, it's done that way. I would be perfectly happy to do things the right way, but when it inconviences those people I might as well forget about it.

Don't fret it though, I make sure my ass is covered.

-cm
[sig][/sig]

 

[schlake]

I understand, completely....

CYA is right. Point out the flaws with their suggetions, implement and then when the "you know what" hits the fan, "I told you so...". When this happens enough times they will eventually start to listen...

What they don't understand is their power pushing and politics ends up costing them more in overhead and costs to fix the ridiculous mistakes from decisions they made in the first place, they weren't qualified to make! So quit complaining about the overhead and allow the techs todo the research up front- and make informed decisions...after all isn't that what we're being paid to do?

They refuse to see their ego trips cost the organization as a whole and are a MAJOR contributing factor to the "overhead" they are so burdened by....

I know I'm venting...