[NTISP Digest]

ntisp-digest-request@iea-software.com
Tue, 30 Jun 1998 00:00:23 -0700

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Previous message: Paul W. Wilcox: "Re: switchover SMTP with Exchange and IMS"
Next message: Brian Lube: "Migrating Web Sites"

Message 1: IIS 4.0 Administration & FTP Service
from "George G. Stossel" <STOSSEL@DACOR.COM>

Message 2: switchover SMTP with Exchange and IMS
from "FG" <fgrondin@guetali.fr>

Message 3: Re: switchover SMTP with Exchange and IMS
from "David Payer" <david.payer@ia-omni.com>

Message 4: Re: BOOTING WITH A RAID 5
from "Robert W. Downard" <downrw@sncac.snc.edu>

Message 5: Netserver 16 Plus
from bowen@csci-va.com

Message 6: RE: BOOTING WITH A RAID 5
from "albert zegiel" <emmanuel@mwt.net>

Message 7: RE: BOOTING WITH A RAID 5
from "Richard Lachance" <richard@vircom.com>

Message 8: NT on drive > 2gig?
from "Paul Sheahan" <pesheah@peoples.com>

Message 9: RE: IIS 4.0 Administration & FTP Service
from Endre Palfi <endre@ufonet.net>

Message 10: Re: NT on drive > 2gig?
from "Mike@NetDotCom" <mikek@netdotcom.com>

Message 11: RE: NT on drive > 2gig?
from ronnie@itexas.net (Ronnie D. Franklin)

Message 12: RE: NT on drive > 2gig?
from "Richard Lachance" <richard@vircom.com>

Message 13: RE: NT on drive > 2gig?
from "Richard Lachance" <richard@vircom.com>

Message 14: Re: NT on drive > 2gig?
from "Paul Sheahan" <pesheah@peoples.com>

Message 15: netware 1000 user
from "Eugene W. Moore" <emoore@msbc.com>

Message 16: Re: NT on drive > 2gig?
from "Mike@NetDotCom" <mikek@netdotcom.com>

Message 17: RE: NT on drive > 2gig?
from "Richard Lachance" <richard@vircom.com>

Message 18: Re: NT on drive > 2gig?
from "David Payer" <david.payer@ia-omni.com>

Message 19: Re: NT on drive > 2gig?
from "Paul Sheahan" <pesheah@peoples.com>

Message 20: For those using MS-DNS
from Victor Alba <victor@webjogger.net>

Message 21: RE: For those using MS-DNS
from rkm@marshall.net (rkm)

Message 22: RE: For those using MS-DNS
from Victor Alba <victor@webjogger.net>

Message 23: RE: For those using MS-DNS
from rkm@marshall.net (rkm)

Message 24: Re: For those using MS-DNS
from "David Payer" <david.payer@ia-omni.com>

Message 25: RE: NT on drive > 2gig?
from "Kitt McNamee" <kitt@gaffaneys.com>

Message 26: RE: Postoffice 3.5 released
from "John Davies" <jgd@rockliffe.com>

Message 27: Re: switchover SMTP with Exchange and IMS
from "Paul W. Wilcox" <paulw@surfthe.net.au>

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 1 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: IIS 4.0 Administration & FTP Service
From: "George G. Stossel" <STOSSEL@DACOR.COM>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 09:40:24 -0400

We have noted that from time to time the FTP service for our websites
under IIS 4.0 Administrator disappears and we have to reinstall IIS to
get it back. It's happened three times since we upgraded from IIS 2.0
and we can't pin it down to any event on the server.

Any ideas what's wrong or how to fix it permanently?

George

George G. Stossel, President Phone:
419.352.3568
DACOR, Inc. FAX: 419.353.0149
519 W. Wooster Street Sales: 800.447.5333
Bowling Green, OH 43402-2763 03 USA Email:
stossel@dacor.com
WWW: http://www.dacor.com/

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 2 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: switchover SMTP with Exchange and IMS
From: "FG" <fgrondin@guetali.fr>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 17:37:58 +0400

Message en plusieurs parties et au format MIME.

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BDA384.A7F788F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello everybody,

I've looked everywhere and couldn't find a lot of information about =
switchover SMTP under NT 4.

Here's what I'd like to do :
I have one machine with MS-Exchange as SMTP-POP3 server.
I want to shut it down.
On another machine, I'd like to install another SMTP server (Exchange =
or, better, a freeware like EMWAC's IMS) that would get incoming mail =
while the other is down.
(this sounds possible, with a correct DNS MX setting)

When the first machine is up again, I'd like to send it all the mail =
received during its downtime.

I have found a solution in http://www1.sica.com/ims/second.txt (last =
paragraph).

Has anybody already experienced it ? Do you have other ideas ?

Thanks a lot for your help.

Regards, Frederic.

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BDA384.A7F788F0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">

Hello everybody,

I've looked everywhere and couldn't =find a lot=20of information about switchover SMTP under NT 4.

Here's what I'd like to do =:

I have one machine with MS-Exchange as SMTP-POP3=20server.

I want to shut it down.

On another machine, I'd like to install another SMTP =server=20(Exchange or, better, a freeware like EMWAC's IMS) that would get =incoming mail=20while the other is down.

(this sounds possible, with a =correct DNS MX=20setting)

When the first machine is up again, I'd like to send =it all=20the mail received during its downtime.

I have found a solution in http://www1.sica.com/ims/sec=ond.txt=20(last paragraph).

Has anybody already experienced it ? Do you have =other ideas=20?

Thanks a lot for your help.

Regards, Frederic.

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BDA384.A7F788F0--..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 3 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: Re: switchover SMTP with Exchange and IMSFrom: "David Payer" Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 09:18:24 -0500This is a multi-part message in MIME format.------=_NextPart_000_0014_01BDA33E.DE0C74A0Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 When the first machine is up again, I'd like to send it all the mail =received during its downtime. =20 Regards, Frederic. =20 =20 ********************************* Frederic, If you simply put in an MX record in the domain for the replacement =mail machine with a priority number higher than the one for your main =machine, it will recieve all the mail for that machine when it is down =and will dutifully relay it when the system comes back up. =20 Ah... the rightful use of mail relays! (and how it has been abused =in these recent days by spammers). =20 David Payer OMNI Internet------=_NextPart_000_0014_01BDA33E.DE0C74A0Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

When the first machine is up again, I'd like to =send it=20 all the mail received during its downtime.

Regards, Frederic.

*********************************

Frederic,

If you simply put in an MX record in the domain =for the=20 replacement mail machine with a priority number higher than the one =for your=20 main machine, it will recieve all the mail for that machine when it =is down=20 and will dutifully relay it when the system comes back =up.

Ah... the rightful use of mail relays! (and how =it has=20 been abused in these recent days by spammers).

David Payer

OMNI =Internet

------=_NextPart_000_0014_01BDA33E.DE0C74A0--..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 4 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: Re: BOOTING WITH A RAID 5From: "Robert W. Downard" Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 09:01:31 -0500Richard Lachance wrote:> > > Our RAID 5 array is configured as a single logical drive, which appears> > to NT as a single large disk, which we broke up into several NTFS> > partitions.> > I'm curious about the reasoning behind setting up different partitions; what> prompted you to do that? How is having different partitions affecting the> performance (ie the physical head movements of the disks)?The OS won't live on a partition larger than 2G. We set up a separatepartition for the paging file to facilitate easy defragmentation and weset up seperate partitions for our productions apps and test apps tokeep thing seperate. As far as performance, this is hardware RAID. Allof the partitions are striped across all of the drives in the array, soit doesn't make any difference if you have one partition or ten. Everytime a read or write operation is done, all of the drives in the arrayare accessed because the data is striped across the entire array.-- Robert W. DownardNetworking & Systems Spec. email: downrw@sncac.snc.eduSt. Norbert College Phone: (920) 403-3971100 Grant Street Fax: (920) 403-4084De Pere, WI 54115-2099..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 5 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: Netserver 16 PlusFrom: bowen@csci-va.comDate: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 10:04:47 -0400Brad Owen@CSCI06/29/98 10:04 AMOur company is thinking about going with a Netserver Setup so that ourremote users can dial directly to our office and get on the internet.Has anyone had any gripes or complaints about USR's Netserver? We arehoping that most of our users will be able to connect at 56K X2 but if weonly get 33.6 no will be complaining.Anyone let me know what they like about the Netserver, the Total ControlSoftware, or even how their Netserver is Setup? Ours will connect directlyto a T1.ThanksBrad Owenbowen@csci-va.com..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 6 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: RE: BOOTING WITH A RAID 5From: "albert zegiel" Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 09:26:11 -0700i am going to get another disc drive for the NT prog. i gather that is iso.k to get a 4gig and leave it as one drive for NT?or is it true that itshould be partitioned at 2 gig?> -----Original Message-----> From: ntisp-request@iea-software.com> [mailto:ntisp-request@iea-software.com]On Behalf Of Robert W. Downard> Sent: Monday, June 29, 1998 7:02 AM> To: ntisp@iea-software.com> Subject: Re: BOOTING WITH A RAID 5>>> Richard Lachance wrote:> >> > > Our RAID 5 array is configured as a single logical drive,> which appears> > > to NT as a single large disk, which we broke up into several NTFS> > > partitions.> >> > I'm curious about the reasoning behind setting up different> partitions; what>> Robert W. Downard> Networking & Systems Spec. email: downrw@sncac.snc.edu> St. Norbert College Phone: (920) 403-3971> 100 Grant Street Fax: (920) 403-4084> De Pere, WI 54115-2099>..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 7 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: RE: BOOTING WITH A RAID 5From: "Richard Lachance" Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 11:55:13 -0400> keep thing seperate. As far as performance, this is hardware RAID. All> of the partitions are striped across all of the drives in the array, so> it doesn't make any difference if you have one partition or ten. Every> time a read or write operation is done, all of the drives in the array> are accessed because the data is striped across the entire array.With two partitions on the same (non-RAID) drive, the first partition startsat the physical beginning of the drive while the second one start in themiddle of the drive (assuming partitions of equal sizes). If the I/Oactivity pattern is such that the heads have to constantly switch betweenthe two partitions, the distance of the head movement is longer than ifeverything was on the same partition and your performance is actuallyslower... The gist of my question then is how are multiple partitionsphysically created on a striped RAID?Regards,Richard.Vircom, Inc.PS: 2G limit for the O/S partition? I have NT boxes running on 4G and 9GO/S partitions...------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 8 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: NT on drive > 2gig?From: "Paul Sheahan" Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 12:35:59 -0400I have a system at home with the following config:Primary IDE Controller:Disk1: Western Digital 4 gig IDEDisk2: 12x Mitsumi CDROMSecondary IDE Controller:Disk3: Maxtor 2gig IDEDisk4: Samsung 1 gig IDEWhen I try to install NT 4.0 Server, it pops up and tells me it couldn'tfind a drive to install on. Is this because my primary drive is 4 gig andthe largest boot drive NT can have is 2 gig?So next I tried using switches on the WINNT command line to tell it to usemy Maxtor 2 gig to store the temporary files. This seemed to work, becausethe NT installation continued and copied all files there. Then it asked meto reboot to continue with the installation. After rebooting, I found thatthe boot record was not changed so the installation never continued! Again,is this because the boot drive is 4 gig in size?How do I get around this, break my 4 gig drive up into 2, 2 gig partitions?Thanks!..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 9 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: RE: IIS 4.0 Administration & FTP ServiceFrom: Endre Palfi Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 09:49:10 -0700I'd do a new install and rebuild all the sites you have. I heard thatthe upgrade was not such a perfect feature in IIS 4.0. Then again it isjust a Microsoft bug, which is eventually not a bug, but a feature,since you get to learn about installing websites under II4.0 now fromthe ground up 8)> ----------> From: George G. Stossel[SMTP:STOSSEL@DACOR.COM]> Reply To: ntisp@iea-software.com> Sent: Monday, June 29, 1998 6:40 AM> To: 'Windows NT ISP Mailing List'> Subject: IIS 4.0 Administration & FTP Service> > We have noted that from time to time the FTP service for our websites> under IIS 4.0 Administrator disappears and we have to reinstall IIS to> get it back. It's happened three times since we upgraded from IIS 2.0> and we can't pin it down to any event on the server.> > Any ideas what's wrong or how to fix it permanently?> > George> > George G. Stossel, President Phone:> 419.352.3568> DACOR, Inc. FAX: 419.353.0149> 519 W. Wooster Street Sales: 800.447.5333> Bowling Green, OH 43402-2763 03 USA Email:> stossel@dacor.com> WWW: http://www.dacor.com/> ..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 10 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: Re: NT on drive > 2gig?From: "Mike@NetDotCom" Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 12:51:14 -0400The largest I tried was a 3.2 GB that work as a single partition.Any larger, I partition into 1Gb (C) and 3+GB (D)Mike-----Original Message-----From: Paul Sheahan To: NTMail Date: Monday, June 29, 1998 12:45 PMSubject: NT on drive > 2gig?>I have a system at home with the following config:>>Primary IDE Controller:>Disk1: Western Digital 4 gig IDE>Disk2: 12x Mitsumi CDROM>>Secondary IDE Controller:>Disk3: Maxtor 2gig IDE>Disk4: Samsung 1 gig IDE>>When I try to install NT 4.0 Server, it pops up and tells me it couldn't>find a drive to install on. Is this because my primary drive is 4 gig and>the largest boot drive NT can have is 2 gig?>>So next I tried using switches on the WINNT command line to tell it to use>my Maxtor 2 gig to store the temporary files. This seemed to work, because>the NT installation continued and copied all files there. Then it asked me>to reboot to continue with the installation. After rebooting, I found that>the boot record was not changed so the installation never continued! Again,>is this because the boot drive is 4 gig in size?>>How do I get around this, break my 4 gig drive up into 2, 2 gig partitions?>>Thanks!>>>>..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 11 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: RE: NT on drive > 2gig?From: ronnie@itexas.net (Ronnie D. Franklin)Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 12:03:35 -0500NT can do 4096 megs as the system drive.-----Original Message-----From: Mike@NetDotCom [SMTP:mikek@netdotcom.com]Sent: Monday, June 29, 1998 11:51 AMTo: ntisp@iea-software.comSubject: Re: NT on drive > 2gig?The largest I tried was a 3.2 GB that work as a single partition.Any larger, I partition into 1Gb (C) and 3+GB (D)Mike-----Original Message-----From: Paul Sheahan To: NTMail Date: Monday, June 29, 1998 12:45 PMSubject: NT on drive > 2gig?>I have a system at home with the following config:>>Primary IDE Controller:>Disk1: Western Digital 4 gig IDE>Disk2: 12x Mitsumi CDROM>>Secondary IDE Controller:>Disk3: Maxtor 2gig IDE>Disk4: Samsung 1 gig IDE>>When I try to install NT 4.0 Server, it pops up and tells me it couldn't>find a drive to install on. Is this because my primary drive is 4 gig and>the largest boot drive NT can have is 2 gig?>>So next I tried using switches on the WINNT command line to tell it to use>my Maxtor 2 gig to store the temporary files. This seemed to work, because>the NT installation continued and copied all files there. Then it asked me>to reboot to continue with the installation. After rebooting, I found that>the boot record was not changed so the installation never continued! Again,>is this because the boot drive is 4 gig in size?>>How do I get around this, break my 4 gig drive up into 2, 2 gig partitions?>>Thanks!>>>..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 12 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: RE: NT on drive > 2gig?From: "Richard Lachance" Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 13:56:16 -0400> NT can do 4096 megs as the system drive.Larger than that is possible if the partition is preformated in NTFS; I havea few boxes running with 9.1G system partitions.Regards,Richard.Vircom, Inc...------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 13 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: RE: NT on drive > 2gig?From: "Richard Lachance" Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 13:54:18 -0400> When I try to install NT 4.0 Server, it pops up and tells me it couldn't> find a drive to install on. Is this because my primary drive is 4 gig and> the largest boot drive NT can have is 2 gig?>> How do I get around this, break my 4 gig drive up into 2, 2 gig> partitions?Do you have any other NT box up & running? If so, put the drive in thatmachine and format it as a 4G NTFS partition. Then put it back in the othermachine and boot from the NT install floppies. When it asks which partitionto install on, specify the NTFS partition and you're set.The 2G issue is because NT first format the drive in FAT16, and transformsit later into NTFS. Preformating the partition in NTFS will go around thatproblem.Regards,Richard.Vircom, Inc...------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 14 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: Re: NT on drive > 2gig?From: "Paul Sheahan" Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 14:03:42 -0400My goal is to install Windows NT on the primary drive of my secondary IDEcontroller (the 2 gig Maxtor drive). I just happen to be running Windows 98on my 4 gig boot drive and plan to dual boot each OS. I am also NOT going touse NTFS, as I don't need the security features right now.Why can't I just install NT on the 2 gig drive on the secondary IDEcontroller, and leave my 4 gig boot drive as is (running Win98)? I basicallyjust need the NT boot menu on my 4 gig drive to popup, and when I select"Windows NT 4.0 Server", I want it to just go to my 2 gig drive and run NT.This way I am only dealing with NT on a 2 gig drive, with the boot loader onmy 4 gig drive.Can this be done?Thanks everyone!-----Original Message-----From: Richard Lachance To: ntisp@iea-software.com Date: Monday, June 29, 1998 1:53 PMSubject: RE: NT on drive > 2gig?>> When I try to install NT 4.0 Server, it pops up and tells me it couldn't>> find a drive to install on. Is this because my primary drive is 4 gig and>> the largest boot drive NT can have is 2 gig?>>>> How do I get around this, break my 4 gig drive up into 2, 2 gig>> partitions?>>Do you have any other NT box up & running? If so, put the drive in that>machine and format it as a 4G NTFS partition. Then put it back in theother>machine and boot from the NT install floppies. When it asks whichpartition>to install on, specify the NTFS partition and you're set.>>The 2G issue is because NT first format the drive in FAT16, and transforms>it later into NTFS. Preformating the partition in NTFS will go around that>problem.>>>Regards,>>Richard.>Vircom, Inc.>>..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 15 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: netware 1000 userFrom: "Eugene W. Moore" Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 10:59:22 -0700Our group went with NT and it's left me with a 1000 userIntranetWare/Netware 4.11 MLA license for sale.Respond to me directly if interested.Eugene W. Mooreemoore@msbc.comMoore Communications, Inc.5767 Uplander Way, Suite 206Culver City, CA 90230310.670.3605 ext. 11310.670.0861 FAXwww.msbc.com..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 16 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: Re: NT on drive > 2gig?From: "Mike@NetDotCom" Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 14:14:01 -0400Get Partition Magic from Power Quest www.powerquest.com around $70.00It will do what you want and more.Mike-----Original Message-----From: Paul Sheahan To: ntisp@iea-software.com Date: Monday, June 29, 1998 2:11 PMSubject: Re: NT on drive > 2gig?>My goal is to install Windows NT on the primary drive of my secondary IDE>controller (the 2 gig Maxtor drive). I just happen to be running Windows 98>on my 4 gig boot drive and plan to dual boot each OS. I am also NOT goingto>use NTFS, as I don't need the security features right now.>>Why can't I just install NT on the 2 gig drive on the secondary IDE>controller, and leave my 4 gig boot drive as is (running Win98)? Ibasically>just need the NT boot menu on my 4 gig drive to popup, and when I select>"Windows NT 4.0 Server", I want it to just go to my 2 gig drive and run NT.>This way I am only dealing with NT on a 2 gig drive, with the boot loaderon>my 4 gig drive.>>Can this be done?>>Thanks everyone!>>>>-----Original Message----->From: Richard Lachance >To: ntisp@iea-software.com >Date: Monday, June 29, 1998 1:53 PM>Subject: RE: NT on drive > 2gig?>>>>> When I try to install NT 4.0 Server, it pops up and tells me it couldn't>>> find a drive to install on. Is this because my primary drive is 4 gigand>>> the largest boot drive NT can have is 2 gig?>>>>>> How do I get around this, break my 4 gig drive up into 2, 2 gig>>> partitions?>>>>Do you have any other NT box up & running? If so, put the drive in that>>machine and format it as a 4G NTFS partition. Then put it back in the>other>>machine and boot from the NT install floppies. When it asks which>partition>>to install on, specify the NTFS partition and you're set.>>>>The 2G issue is because NT first format the drive in FAT16, and transforms>>it later into NTFS. Preformating the partition in NTFS will go aroundthat>>problem.>>>>>>Regards,>>>>Richard.>>Vircom, Inc.>>>>>>..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 17 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: RE: NT on drive > 2gig?From: "Richard Lachance" Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 14:22:47 -0400> My goal is to install Windows NT on the primary drive of my secondary IDE> controller (the 2 gig Maxtor drive). I just happen to be running> Windows 98> on my 4 gig boot drive and plan to dual boot each OS. I am also> NOT going to> use NTFS, as I don't need the security features right now.>> Why can't I just install NT on the 2 gig drive on the secondary IDE> controller, and leave my 4 gig boot drive as is (running Win98)?Sure. It is possible that the boot.ini file (hidden system file on your 4Gpartition used by the NT loader) may be confused though. It should probablylook something like this:[boot loader]timeout=5default=multi(0)disk(1)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT[operating systems]multi(0)disk(1)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Windows NT Server Version 4.00"multi(0)disk(1)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Windows NT Server Version 4.00[VGA mode]" /basevideo /sosC:\="Microsoft Windows"In theory, this should boot on the first partition of the second disk. Ofnote, NT4 cannot handle FAT32 disk partitions - that may be where yourproblem is...Regards,Richard.Vircom, Inc...------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 18 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: Re: NT on drive > 2gig?From: "David Payer" Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 13:23:29 -0500>I have a system at home with the following config:>>When I try to install NT 4.0 Server, it pops up and tells me it couldn't>find a drive to install on. Is this because my primary drive is 4 gig and>the largest boot drive NT can have is 2 gig?>Are these new drives? Start with one that has no partition and see if thataffects things. If you install over a drive that had dos on it (or a win/doscombination prior to FAT 32) you may be working under a FAT partition.My install would only use 4 gig of a 4.3 gig drive. I 'll use the extrapartition space for storing email from this list.... :)David PayerOMNI Internet..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 19 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: Re: NT on drive > 2gig?From: "Paul Sheahan" Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 14:27:15 -0400After I sent my reply I realized that is exactly what my problem is! All mydrives are Fat32. Dammit!Does a utility exist to convert back to Fat16 from Fat32?Thanks-----Original Message-----From: Richard Lachance To: ntisp@iea-software.com Date: Monday, June 29, 1998 2:16 PMSubject: RE: NT on drive > 2gig?>> My goal is to install Windows NT on the primary drive of my secondary IDE>> controller (the 2 gig Maxtor drive). I just happen to be running>> Windows 98>> on my 4 gig boot drive and plan to dual boot each OS. I am also>> NOT going to>> use NTFS, as I don't need the security features right now.>>>> Why can't I just install NT on the 2 gig drive on the secondary IDE>> controller, and leave my 4 gig boot drive as is (running Win98)?>>Sure. It is possible that the boot.ini file (hidden system file on your 4G>partition used by the NT loader) may be confused though. It shouldprobably>look something like this:>>[boot loader]>timeout=5>default=multi(0)disk(1)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT>[operating systems]>multi(0)disk(1)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Windows NT Server Version 4.00">multi(0)disk(1)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Windows NT Server Version 4.00>[VGA mode]" /basevideo /sos>C:\="Microsoft Windows">>In theory, this should boot on the first partition of the second disk. Of>note, NT4 cannot handle FAT32 disk partitions - that may be where your>problem is...>>>Regards,>>Richard.>Vircom, Inc.>>..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 20 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: For those using MS-DNSFrom: Victor Alba Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 14:56:10 -0400On sunday morning we experienced an unusual problem that I was hopingsomeone could help me clarify it. We run our primary DNS server in-house(MS-DNS) and have our upstream run the secondary (MCI). We are usingsitescope to monitor our Network and we saw yesterday morning that theSecondary DNS was reported as being down. We didn't have too much of aconcern since we thought we had our Primary running.....a few minutes laterwe tried accessing some sites and all we got was "DNS server not found".Customers started to call by the dozens.... everything else was just greatjust no name resolution at all !! Half and hour later when our secondarycame back up everything was om again. The question here is: Why wasn't ourprimary working?? We have no forwarders specified, there were no errorsregistered in the NT logs, the DNS was up & running (according to NT)......why then we couldn't do anything !!If anyone has an answer to the problem (other than changing over to BINDwhich is something I'm considering seriously) or an explanation for it I'dlove to hear it. Thanks.-Victor..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 21 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: RE: For those using MS-DNSFrom: rkm@marshall.net (rkm)Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 15:05:37 -0400Did you use NSLOOKUP or any similar tools to verify the condition of the DNSserver? Just because the DNS service is running doesn't mean it isresponding to requests...> -----Original Message-----> From: ntisp-request@iea-software.com> [mailto:ntisp-request@iea-software.com]On Behalf Of Victor Alba> Sent: Monday, June 29, 1998 2:56 PM> To: ntisp@iea-software.com> Subject: For those using MS-DNS>>>> On sunday morning we experienced an unusual problem that I was hoping> someone could help me clarify it. We run our primary DNS server in-house> (MS-DNS) and have our upstream run the secondary (MCI). We are using> sitescope to monitor our Network and we saw yesterday morning that the> Secondary DNS was reported as being down. We didn't have too much of a> concern since we thought we had our Primary running.....a few> minutes later> we tried accessing some sites and all we got was "DNS server not found".> Customers started to call by the dozens.... everything else was just great> just no name resolution at all !! Half and hour later when our> secondary> came back up everything was om again. The question here is: Why> wasn't our> primary working?? We have no forwarders specified, there were no errors> registered in the NT logs, the DNS was up & running (according to> NT)......> why then we couldn't do anything !!>> If anyone has an answer to the problem (other than changing over to BIND> which is something I'm considering seriously) or an explanation for it I'd> love to hear it. Thanks.>> -Victor>>>..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 22 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: RE: For those using MS-DNSFrom: Victor Alba Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 15:07:17 -0400At 03:05 PM 6/29/98 -0400, you wrote:>Did you use NSLOOKUP or any similar tools to verify the condition of the DNS>server? Just because the DNS service is running doesn't mean it is>responding to requests...>I sure did and MS-DNS responded with DNS time outs all the times, why? Anyideas..?There were zero errors in event viewer...-Victor..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 23 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: RE: For those using MS-DNSFrom: rkm@marshall.net (rkm)Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 15:18:45 -0400Went thru a period of this with one of our servers.. wound up that it wasafter we had added some virtual IP's to the box... DNS service was runningbut not working. We removed and reinstalled the service and haven't had theproblem since. BTW on the reinstall it did pick up all the previous DNSrecords.> -----Original Message-----> From: ntisp-request@iea-software.com> [mailto:ntisp-request@iea-software.com]On Behalf Of Victor Alba> Sent: Monday, June 29, 1998 3:07 PM> To: ntisp@iea-software.com> Subject: RE: For those using MS-DNS>>> At 03:05 PM 6/29/98 -0400, you wrote:> >Did you use NSLOOKUP or any similar tools to verify the> condition of the DNS> >server? Just because the DNS service is running doesn't mean it is> >responding to requests...> >>>> I sure did and MS-DNS responded with DNS time outs all the times,> why? Any> ideas..?> There were zero errors in event viewer...>> -Victor>>..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 24 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: Re: For those using MS-DNSFrom: "David Payer" Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 15:08:49 -0500>On sunday morning we experienced an unusual problem that I was hoping>someone could help me clarify it. We saw yesterday morning that the>Secondary DNS was reported as being down. We didn't have too much of aconcern since we thought we had our Primary running**************Victor,Talk to your tech support person for MCI. You may not have been madeauthoritative for your segment of the block of addressing, even if you arethe DNS of record for the domain. If your upstream does not make you thesource of authority, then they still are.It happened to me, changes to DNS were not seen by people outside ournetwork. Our upstream was still authoritative for the address segment.David PayerOMNI Internetwww.ia-omni.com..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 25 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: RE: NT on drive > 2gig?From: "Kitt McNamee" Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 16:01:24 -0500------ =_NextPart_000_01BDA377.D84554E0Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bitTry Partition Magic. It will convert it back for you.Kitt-----Original Message-----From: Paul Sheahan [SMTP:pesheah@peoples.com]Sent: Monday, June 29, 1998 1:27 PMTo: ntisp@iea-software.comSubject: Re: NT on drive > 2gig?After I sent my reply I realized that is exactly what my problem is! All mydrives are Fat32. Dammit!Does a utility exist to convert back to Fat16 from Fat32?Thanks-----Original Message-----From: Richard Lachance To: ntisp@iea-software.com Date: Monday, June 29, 1998 2:16 PMSubject: RE: NT on drive > 2gig?>> My goal is to install Windows NT on the primary drive of my secondary IDE>> controller (the 2 gig Maxtor drive). I just happen to be running>> Windows 98>> on my 4 gig boot drive and plan to dual boot each OS. I am also>> NOT going to>> use NTFS, as I don't need the security features right now.>>>> Why can't I just install NT on the 2 gig drive on the secondary IDE>> controller, and leave my 4 gig boot drive as is (running Win98)?>>Sure. It is possible that the boot.ini file (hidden system file on your 4G>partition used by the NT loader) may be confused though. It shouldprobably>look something like this:>>[boot loader]>timeout=5>default=multi(0)disk(1)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT>[operating systems]>multi(0)disk(1)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Windows NT Server Version 4.00">multi(0)disk(1)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Windows NT Server Version 4.00>[VGA mode]" /basevideo /sos>C:\="Microsoft Windows">>In theory, this should boot on the first partition of the second disk. Of>note, NT4 cannot handle FAT32 disk partitions - that may be where your>problem is...>>>Regards,>>Richard.>Vircom, Inc.>>------ =_NextPart_000_01BDA377.D84554E0Content-Type: application/ms-tnefContent-Transfer-Encoding: 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------ =_NextPart_000_01BDA377.D84554E0--..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 26 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: RE: Postoffice 3.5 releasedFrom: "John Davies" Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 08:28:11 -0700Take a look at MailSite: http://www.rockliffe.com.Unlimited users for $695, full multi-domain support, unlimited mail lists, etc.Migration tools from Post.Office coming soon....>I have a client that uses MDaemon (www.mdaemon.com). It's a great mail>server with 5000 accounts for $89.95. It also has a built in listserv>function.>>Only two drawbacks:>1. It doesn't host multiple domains without running multiple copies of the>app, and>2. It can not crack mail lists over about 30 subscribers internally. You>have to find another server to relay the mail through.>>Supposedly, they're working on these two issues. Could David be in the>bullpen warming up to beat Goliath?>>/ric>>At 12:44 PM 6/10/98 -0500, you wrote:>>More loose change;>> We have been using Post.Office since before ver 1.0. We used to have an>>unlimited licence, but had to give that up for version 3.x . Today we>>ordered an additional 1000 mail boxes at $995 (special ISP offer at that).>>It's a great server but the company doesn't seem to want to have ISP's as>>customers. They are too concerned about selling maintenance agreements, and>>making $$$ off of corporate Intranets. Why have a listserv when you can>>make money off of people's questions?>> I think the other mail server companies are missing the boat. If they>>offer reasonable prices, unlimited licences, and an easy-to-use migration>>utility they could take Software.Com out of the ISP business. If it wasn't>>for all the accounts we would have to reenter we would seriously look at>>dumping Software.Com.>>>>>>At 09:15 PM 6/9/98 +0200, you wrote:>>>Hi,>>>>>>I just saw that Post-Office 3.5 is available, but when I saw>>>what a Postoffice 3.1.2 customer needs to pay as upgrade>>>I feel pissed off. 99$ per 100 e-mail addresses. They even make no>>>difference if you have licensed Postoffce version 1.x; 2.x; or 3.x.>>>Everyone has to pay the same when upgrading! Thinking back on>>>the BIG price increase from version 2.x to 3.x where one got>>>500 e-mails for 495$ now 100 e-mails for 495$, I thought that they>>>would be more cooperative on upgrades after this dramatic price >>>increase. I already wonder what the upgrade price will be from version>3.5 to>>>4.0?>>>>>>When looking the what's new in Postoffice 3.5 I find that>>>only minor changes and features were added which already should have>>>been in Postoffice for a long time. Important changes such as IMAP4>>>or a web interface for customers to access their mail when no mail client>>>is available are still missing!>>>>>>They also gave the product a new name Intermail Postoffice edition.>>>>>>Another problem I have with them is that they even don't offer a mailing>>list >>>for Postoffice customers where customers can help themselves to resolve>>>problems even if problems are very rare with PostOffice. They want you to >>>buy their support packages.>>>>>>On the other hand I must admit that the Postoffice E-Mail server works>>>flawlessly since we are using it. Rock solid never had a problem, but the >>>pricing strategy of software.com is becoming a problem for us.>>>>>>Just my 5 cents,>>>>>>Christian>>>>>>>>>>> R. Laughlin>> Majordomo@essex1.com>> Essex Internet>> Sterling, IL 61081>> (815) 625-8893>> >>>..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 27 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: Re: switchover SMTP with Exchange and IMSFrom: "Paul W. Wilcox" Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 13:35:53 +1000Over time we have been running EMWACS as both a primary and secondaryservers in various configurations, in all cases it has proven to be robustand very capable, perhaps a classic example of the KISS principle.The answer to your question is yes, if set up correctly at a DNS level, allyou have to do is have it running, it will take all mail that the primarywould normally receive, and within about 5 minutes of the Primary comingback on line, it will dump the mail across. The page you refered to isactually instructions for a mailfilter called SCMS, which is an excellentadd-on for this program (again it's freeware), it is a very cmpleteanti-spam/relay set of plugins.If for some reason you've got something against freeware, try MailSite.It's based on the same code, and just as solid but with a greater array offeatures.Hope this answers your questions.___________________________Paul W. WilcoxDirector - Sales and MarketingSurf The Net AustraliaEmail: paulw@surfthe.net.auWeb: http://www.surfthe.net.auPh: 02 9439 9830___________________________ -----Original Message----- From: FG To: ntisp@iea-software.com Date: Monday, June 29, 1998 11:44 PM Subject: switchover SMTP with Exchange and IMS Hello everybody, I've looked everywhere and couldn't find a lot of information aboutswitchover SMTP under NT 4. Here's what I'd like to do : I have one machine with MS-Exchange as SMTP-POP3 server. I want to shut it down. On another machine, I'd like to install another SMTP server (Exchangeor, better, a freeware like EMWAC's IMS) that would get incoming mail whilethe other is down. (this sounds possible, with a correct DNS MX setting) Has anybody already experienced it ? Do you have other ideas ?

Previous message: Paul W. Wilcox: "Re: switchover SMTP with Exchange and IMS"
Next message: Brian Lube: "Migrating Web Sites"