domain name system - Exchange 2010 OWA send connector issue

I have problems sending emails outside organization using OWA (Exchange 2010 installed on SBS 2010, domain is domain.local, local DNS). Web-server and email server are hosted remotely, I am using pop connector to grab emails to Exchange 2010.

I have created two send connector, one that handles internal emails and one for external email. The problem is connector for emails over internet, which is configured like:

Addres Space SMTP, *, 1

Network Route email throught the following route host Smart host
authentication: Basic authentication over TLS + username, password

If I don't use smart host I get the following error 451 4.4.0 Primary target IP address responded with: “454 4.7.5 Certificate validation failure.”

If I use smart host when using OWA outside of organization (different ISP), message gets stucked in a queue without being sent.

What am I doing wrong when configuring send connector?

Answer

You likely only need one send connecter, and since your primary mail server is remote, I assume you want to send email through it (aka smarthost). That way you don't need to worry about DNS A records, MX, PTR, SPF, and all the other mail configuration stuff. Just set your send connector smarthost to your mail provider's SMTP server and ensure you are authenticating so you'll be allowed to relay. If you don't authenticate, they'll almost surely deny your email (which is likely why it's sitting in queue) because that would be a "open relay", which is a bad thing.

Comments

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able

Blog

Search This Blog