Sender ID Filtering vs. SBS Fax Server
|
Prev: ISA 2004 cisco SSL vpn client
Next: Join a domain
From: chace zhang on 25 Jul 2006 03:42 Hi Steve, Thanks for you update. Since from the header, it indicates resolving DNS fail, I was assuming something wrong with your DNS server, so I asked you perform the steps I mentioned. After I talked with internal discussion group, I think these warning events are perfectly normal and expected. They are happening because Exchange cannot find any Non-Trusted IP on the headers of the email, thus there is no IP to filter upon, and this is expected as the source of the email is a server that is defined as one of your perimeter servers. So basically the event is saying that there is no 'unknown' IPs to check, this is by design. I hope this address your concern, Have a nice day! Best Regards, Chace Zhang (MSFT) Microsoft CSS Online Newsgroup Support Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security ===================================================== This newsgroup only focuses on SBS technical issues. If you have issues regarding other Microsoft products, you'd better post in the corresponding newsgroups so that they can be resolved in an efficient and timely manner. You can locate the newsgroup here: http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.aspx When opening a new thread via the web interface, we recommend you check the "Notify me of replies" box to receive e-mail notifications when there are any updates in your thread. When responding to posts via your newsreader, please "Reply to Group" so that others may learn and benefit from your issue. Microsoft engineers can only focus on one issue per thread. Although we provide other information for your reference, we recommend you post different incidents in different threads to keep the thread clean. In doing so, it will ensure your issues are resolved in a timely manner. For urgent issues, you may want to contact Microsoft CSS directly. Please check http://support.microsoft.com for regional support phone numbers. Any input or comments in this thread are highly appreciated. ===================================================== This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. -------------------- | From: "spm" <nospam(a)coco.dot.co.dot.uk> | Subject: Re: Sender ID Filtering vs. SBS Fax Server | References: <xn0eolmkjbvgt4000(a)news.microsoft.com> <xn0eon1fa78ccv000(a)news.microsoft.com> <nSiStIzpGHA.6120(a)TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl> <xn0eoprpzmddq000(a)news.microsoft.com> <2v6fb21uac5jbap5epkaq8qberlner6qcq(a)4ax.com> <socfb2d0orrgfibqi0ghqaq38k0fq1gnsf(a)4ax.com> <xn0eopzln39h1i000(a)news.microsoft.com> <Nh27HxYqGHA.4612(a)TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl> <xn0eou0dp9ro3q000(a)news.microsoft.com> <tVQDv1kqGHA.5464(a)TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl> <xn0eovc202598f001(a)news.microsoft.com> <P6eZkXxqGHA.4612(a)TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl> <xn0eowxoh46utr000(a)news.microsoft.com> <YxYIeJ6qGHA.4272(a)TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl> <xn0eoyc28gkkxc000(a)news.microsoft.com> <5dEzhVKrGHA.4272(a)TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl> <xn0eozhj72prgk001(a)news.microsoft.com> <OHnbouMrGHA.4272(a)TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl> <xn0eozpuue1jxs000(a)news.microsoft.com> <ihe7elsrGHA.4188(a)TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl> | Organization: CoCo Systems Ltd. | User-Agent: XanaNews/1.18.1.3 | Message-ID: <xn0ep3ppw1vpvn000(a)news.microsoft.com> | X-Ref: news.microsoft.com ~XNS:000000A8 | MIME-Version: 1.0 | Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 | Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs | Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 02:47:41 -0700 | NNTP-Posting-Host: cocohome.co.uk 80.229.190.27 | Lines: 1 | Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl | Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs:283655 | X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs | | Hi Chace, | | Responses in-line... | | > Seriously, I'm not joking, I appreciate you time and research on this | > case. From the previous post I do understand you are a professional. | | OK, thanks for the confirmation. Sometimes comments in email can be | misinterpreted, so I thought it best to check. | | > Considering your current situation, since you need manually add a PTR | > recorder for your server's internal IP address, it sounds like the | > zone is not allow dynamic updates | | It wasn't at first (I guess that is a default for SBS?), but I did set | dynamic updates to "Secure only" as per your post above for the local | subnet's reverse lookup zone, and PTR records are being dynamically | updated as expected, for both the server and all workstations. | | > and/or the interface is not to set | > to register in DNS | | Well, the local subnet does have reverse lookup zonr, if that's what | you mean. If not, please kindly explain further. | | > or there is a registry key set to prevent the | > server from registering it's PTR records. | > | > About registry key set to prevent registering PTR record in DNS, | > please refer to following Microsoft Knowledge Base article: | > | > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/198767/en-us | | No, the UseDynamicDns registry value is not present, so it should | default to the correct value. | | -- | Regards, | Steve. |
From: spm on 25 Jul 2006 10:10 chace zhang wrote: > After I talked with internal discussion group, I think these warning > events are perfectly normal and expected. > They are happening because Exchange cannot find any Non-Trusted IP on > the headers of the email, thus there is no IP to filter upon, and > this is expected as the source of the email is a server that is > defined as one of your perimeter servers. So basically the event is > saying that there is no 'unknown' IPs to check, this is by design. OK, I'm not going to push it further, but I still don't get it. These events are of type 'error', and they clutter the event log, yet you seem to be saying that while they are not in fact errors, they are by design. Strange. Not only that, they appear only to occur as a result of received fax notifications, whereas other server-originated emails (such as daily server performance reports, or from other apps using SMTP) do not generate the (error) events. I'll drop it here, and just ignore them in future. -- Regards, Steve.
From: chace zhang on 26 Jul 2006 06:35 Hi Steve, Thank you for your update, I do understand this issue fazes you. You can submit a feedback to our product team directly. Legitimate Wishes fit into the following guidelines: - Enhancement or feature addition to existing Microsoft products - Reproducible problem or bug with current version that needs resolution - Cannot find documentation of feature within the help files - Difficulty using the product - All beta products - Product packaging complaints - Added accessibility feature for a Microsoft product These can be submitted here: https://support.microsoft.com/common/survey.aspx?scid=sw;en;1214&showpage=1& WS=Wish&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.microsoft.com%2fireland%2fcontact%2f Thanks for your time. Best Regards, Chace Zhang (MSFT) Microsoft CSS Online Newsgroup Support Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security ===================================================== This newsgroup only focuses on SBS technical issues. If you have issues regarding other Microsoft products, you'd better post in the corresponding newsgroups so that they can be resolved in an efficient and timely manner. You can locate the newsgroup here: http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.aspx When opening a new thread via the web interface, we recommend you check the "Notify me of replies" box to receive e-mail notifications when there are any updates in your thread. When responding to posts via your newsreader, please "Reply to Group" so that others may learn and benefit from your issue. Microsoft engineers can only focus on one issue per thread. Although we provide other information for your reference, we recommend you post different incidents in different threads to keep the thread clean. In doing so, it will ensure your issues are resolved in a timely manner. For urgent issues, you may want to contact Microsoft CSS directly. Please check http://support.microsoft.com for regional support phone numbers. Any input or comments in this thread are highly appreciated. ===================================================== This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. -------------------- | From: "spm" <nospam(a)coco.dot.co.dot.uk> | Subject: Re: Sender ID Filtering vs. SBS Fax Server | References: <xn0eolmkjbvgt4000(a)news.microsoft.com> <xn0eoprpzmddq000(a)news.microsoft.com> <2v6fb21uac5jbap5epkaq8qberlner6qcq(a)4ax.com> <socfb2d0orrgfibqi0ghqaq38k0fq1gnsf(a)4ax.com> <xn0eopzln39h1i000(a)news.microsoft.com> <Nh27HxYqGHA.4612(a)TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl> <xn0eou0dp9ro3q000(a)news.microsoft.com> <tVQDv1kqGHA.5464(a)TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl> <xn0eovc202598f001(a)news.microsoft.com> <P6eZkXxqGHA.4612(a)TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl> <xn0eowxoh46utr000(a)news.microsoft.com> <YxYIeJ6qGHA.4272(a)TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl> <xn0eoyc28gkkxc000(a)news.microsoft.com> <5dEzhVKrGHA.4272(a)TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl> <xn0eozhj72prgk001(a)news.microsoft.com> <OHnbouMrGHA.4272(a)TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl> <xn0eozpuue1jxs000(a)news.microsoft.com> <ihe7elsrGHA.4188(a)TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl> <xn0ep3ppw1vpvn000(a)news.microsoft.com> <rtG3v37rGHA.4188(a)TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl> | Organization: CoCo Systems Ltd. | User-Agent: XanaNews/1.18.1.3 | Message-ID: <xn0ep5b9x175ly000(a)news.microsoft.com> | X-Ref: news.microsoft.com ~XNS:000000A9 | MIME-Version: 1.0 | Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 | Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs | Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:10:43 -0700 | NNTP-Posting-Host: cocohome.co.uk 80.229.190.27 | Lines: 1 | Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl | Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs:284023 | X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs | | chace zhang wrote: | | > After I talked with internal discussion group, I think these warning | > events are perfectly normal and expected. | > They are happening because Exchange cannot find any Non-Trusted IP on | > the headers of the email, thus there is no IP to filter upon, and | > this is expected as the source of the email is a server that is | > defined as one of your perimeter servers. So basically the event is | > saying that there is no 'unknown' IPs to check, this is by design. | | OK, I'm not going to push it further, but I still don't get it. These | events are of type 'error', and they clutter the event log, yet you | seem to be saying that while they are not in fact errors, they are by | design. Strange. Not only that, they appear only to occur as a result | of received fax notifications, whereas other server-originated emails | (such as daily server performance reports, or from other apps using | SMTP) do not generate the (error) events. | | I'll drop it here, and just ignore them in future. | | -- | Regards, | Steve. |
From: spm on 28 Jul 2006 17:06 Thanks for that, Drew. I used to route faxes to Sharepoint, but ceased doing that (before I even came across these error events) as I didn't like the way things work, and the time taken to prune faxes manually (is there a straightforward way to delete multiple faxes from a document library?) Printing is not desirable, either, as most faxes we receive are junk anyway. Hence the choice to route via email. -- Regards, Steve.
From: spm on 2 Aug 2006 17:49
Drew Edmundson wrote: > Oops, sorry I missed your post. .. No problem - you don't have any obligation to post at all ;-) I am grateful for your input and useful info. I'll experiment again with routing faxes to Sharepoint (and set an e-mail alert on the Incoming Faxes lib), and see how it feels. Thanks again. -- Regards, Steve. |