Re: Exchange03, Exchange2000, OL03 by Jawallaby
Jawallaby
Sat Sep 24 07:56:01 CDT 2005
Ed,
I would like to apologize. I just read the definition of MVP and now realize
that you are not a MS employee. I incorrectly assumed you were being paid by
MS to manage this newsgroup and feel badly that I lambasted you for your
failure to attend the issue. I appreciate your willingness to answer
questions for no compensation and wish you well in future endeavors.
"Ed Crowley [MVP]" wrote:
> It sounds like you have the problem under control, and I'm happy to have
> tried to help.
> --
> Ed Crowley
> MVP - Exchange
> "Protecting the world from PSTs and brick backups!"
>
> "Jawallaby" <Jawallaby@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:95C4506F-CB6A-4266-858C-09BBEB129B14@microsoft.com...
> > Thanks. The new server is not in the old domain. I am using a technology
> > called Active Directory Services, for our purposes here I will refer to it
> > as
> > ADS (that is an acronym, which is a short version of a longer name;
> > typically
> > being the first letter of each word of the acronyms definition, but
> > sometimes
> > can be phonetically derived) anyway, This 'ADS' technology is a sort of
> > enhanced replacement for the "Domain" service that ran on Windows NT
> > Version
> > 4 and below. That is an operating system(OS)<--note the use of the
> > acronym:)
> > Back to the issue: The ADS service is in all ways seperate from the old
> > domain. As I am sure you are aware, objects often need names in order to
> > make
> > it easier to reference those objects. This is also true in computers. So,
> > the
> > old domain object has one name, that makes it much easier to utilize the
> > services provided by that object. The ADS also has a name, it is not the
> > same
> > as the old domain. So with two names established we are able to refer to
> > them
> > seperately. That means that computers which have been configured to
> > participate in the use of the services provided by the old domain system
> > (that's the one that isn't named the same as the ADS) should not normally
> > attempt to utilize the services of the new ADS(that's the one that isn't
> > named the same as the domain). Furthermore, the inverse may be applied to
> > the
> > former. One might begin to recognize that the whole reason for this may
> > have
> > been planned, perhaps as a way to keep one from affecting the other.
> > Impressive as this foresight may be, it seems that in this case, there has
> > been a failure in the implementation of an otherwise splendid idea.
> >
> > One way for this failure to occur would be that the services installed
> > after
> > the OS may go out and coerce the software on other computers to
> > communicate
> > with it despite their configuration which clearly states they should do
> > otherwise.
> > This might, in some circles, be considered substandard logic. It also may
> > be
> > a flaw in the implementation of an otherwise brilliant plan. Sometimes we
> > in
> > the technology business would call this a 'bug'. This is one of a myriad
> > of
> > options.
> >
> > Another way this failure might occur would be that the client software
> > might
> > 'prefer' a certain service more than others. That would be a great idea as
> > long as that client software were willing to adhere to the rules and logic
> > implemented by it's infrastructure management model (that is another way
> > to
> > refer to ADS or a domain) and required to adhere to it's manually
> > configured
> > local settings. Failure to do so would also indicate general
> > shortsightedness
> > in the design or a quality control issue in the implementation (also
> > called a
> > bug).
> >
> > This is a fairly normal series of issues that might occur. It is also
> > possible that an entirely different problem exists. There are, in fact,
> > so
> > many possibilities that the people who produce this software have to pay
> > people to help stem the almost overwhelming tide of people who have
> > realized
> > that there exists a problem in their systems. In the olden days one was
> > able
> > to refer to the documentation that came with their product with a somewhat
> > better than average chance of finding an answer. Alas, the rapid pace of
> > technology and profits seems to have dictated that software be produced so
> > quickly and cheaply that decent and usefull documentation be nearly
> > impossible to keep up. The rate of change and the escalating number of
> > possible flaws ... but I digress.
> >
> > I, having encountered an issue that may indicate one of the aforementioned
> > flaws, turned to the much lauded Microsoft Technical Support Managed
> > Newsgroups. That proud flagship of the team of highly motivated, properly
> > trained souls most of us just call - Tech Support. Somehow though, despite
> > millions of dollars invested, a failure has occurred. One man held his
> > head
> > up and said "There may be no 'I' in team but there sure is an 'M' and an
> > 'E'", and I think we both know what that spells (it's 'ME' ;). This one
> > man
> > said that and decided the despite the efforts of those brave souls on
> > whose
> > shoulders he has been weighing, he would choose ignorance instead of
> > enlightenment, failure instead of success. Fate, Luck, karma, whatever the
> > force, the result is the same. I suppose I will now need to attempt other,
> > more nefarious routes to find information. Much like a detective having to
> > carouse the slums to gather quality information, I will have to just
> > search
> > around the Internet. It is my hope that one day, some time, that man; that
> > one man, would say "I feel responsible as a representative of the company
> > I
> > work for". That one statement could be the difference.
> >
> > Thanks for the attempt Ed, I'm sure you gave it your best shot.
> >
> >
> > "Ed Crowley [MVP]" wrote:
> >
> >> Your first post said:
> >> "I added an exchange 2003 server to my network. Didn't put it in the
> >> domain;"
> >> So I started out confused because you can't install Exchange 2003 without
> >> a
> >> domain.
> >>
> >> Okay, so where did you put it if you didn't put it in a domain? Of
> >> course I
> >> know it's in a domain; do you have trusts between the domain the new
> >> server
> >> is in and the old domain?
> >>
> >> Are you using Microsoft DNS? Some systems aren't as tolerant of
> >> underscores
> >> as Microsoft's. Is is possible that name resolution is causing the
> >> client
> >> to find the new server due to a misconfigured entry or the use of the
> >> underscore?
> >> --
> >> Ed Crowley
> >> MVP - Exchange
> >> "Protecting the world from PSTs and brick backups!"
> >>
> >> "Jawallaby" <Jawallaby@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:D73A9DDA-6282-4440-8EB3-E6F6610ECB1F@microsoft.com...
> >> > Ed,
> >> > Thanks so much for taking the time to read my posts and then really
> >> > work
> >> > to
> >> > come up with a meaningful response. This is exactly what the online
> >> > support
> >> > experience should be: clear, concise, meaningful and most of all,
> >> > interested.
> >> > I appreciate knowing that when I need help, people like you are ready
> >> > and
> >> > willing to take a few minutes and really think about the problems I am
> >> > having
> >> > with the products you support and then provide a solution as quickly as
> >> > possible.
> >> >
> >> > With that said; I think that if you had taken 1 minute to actually read
> >> > and
> >> > comprehend what I wrote you would have noticed the following:
> >> > 1. There has been no migration.
> >> > 2. There is no association between the old system and the new system
> >> > other
> >> > than the same subnet
> >> > 3. I didn't ask for an opinion of migration methodology; I asked for
> >> > help
> >> > with a certain very specific problem and even tried to provide enough
> >> > information to make it possible for someone to provide such help.
> >> >
> >> > If outlook does have 'some active directory intelligence' perhaps you
> >> > might
> >> > have taken a few seconds to expand upon that statement. Perhaps
> >> > pointing
> >> > me
> >> > to a relevant article would even be in order.
> >> >
> >> > Either way, in a total of three sentences you have made it crystal
> >> > clear
> >> > that you have no intention of paying any attention to this matter and I
> >> > will
> >> > have to look elsewhere.
> >> >
> >> > Thank you for your words of wisdom, it's good to know I have access to
> >> > the
> >> > best software support the Internet can provide.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Ed Crowley [MVP]" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Outlook 2003 does have some Active Directory intelligence. The way
> >> >> you
> >> >> migrated isn't the way I'd have done it.
> >> >> --
> >> >> Ed Crowley
> >> >> MVP - Exchange
> >> >> "Protecting the world from PSTs and brick backups!"
> >> >>
> >> >> "Jawallaby" <Jawallaby@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:DE51BE7F-9CDB-4AC2-AB73-ABFAD21DABC1@microsoft.com...
> >> >> > As I said in my post: I didn't. There is no relationship between
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > new
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > old servers/exchange system at all. That is why I am stumped. It's
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > act
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > bringing Exchange03 up on the network that makes the difference.
> >> >> > Different
> >> >> > Org name, ADS tree, server name, everything. The only thing that is
> >> >> > moderately similar is the naming of the servers. The old server is
> >> >> > server_1,
> >> >> > the new is just server1.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Ed Crowley [MVP]" wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> How did you add an Exchange 2003 server into an NT domain?
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Ed Crowley
> >> >> >> MVP - Exchange
> >> >> >> "Protecting the world from PSTs and brick backups!"
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Jawallaby" <Jawallaby@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:909E2C24-B171-40B0-9DDB-CC9004274F90@microsoft.com...
> >> >> >> > Prior Environment: Winnt4.0 running DNS, WINS, Exchange5.5
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I added an exchange 2003 server to my network. Didn't put it in
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > domain;
> >> >> >> > no relationship to the old servers other than the same subnet.
> >> >> >> > When
> >> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> > did
> >> >> >> > that my clients running Outlook 2003 auto attach to the
> >> >> >> > exchange03
> >> >> >> > server.
> >> >> >> > They don't have user accounts in the new ads yet, the
> >> >> >> > workstations
> >> >> >> > aren't
> >> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> > the ads... nothing. There should be no relationship to the new
> >> >> >> > server
> >> >> >> > but
> >> >> >> > when I start the exchange services on the new server the OL2003
> >> >> >> > clients
> >> >> >> > won't
> >> >> >> > attach to the old exchange server. Even if I go into control
> >> >> >> > panels
> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> > specify the old server by name, when I hit 'Check Name' it
> >> >> >> > changes
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > servername to the new server and won't resolve names.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Any help will be appreciated.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>