Smtp connector in Exhange 2003 4

[Dfig]

We are running Exchange 2003 SP2. I have no Smtp connectors configured. I know you don't need one for external mail to flow but is there any benefits in configuring one? I don not get smooth mail flow. I do get a build up of mail in my out queue and I have to manually delete them(NDRs)as well as valid emails that sits in there. What is the difference between sending Helo or Ehlo. Any suggestions?

 

[markdmac]

Helo is for standard SMTP servers while ehlo is for Exchange servers.

You might want to configure your server to not send out NDRs as they could tip off the spammers.

I hope you find this post helpful.

Regards,

Mark

Check out my scripting solutions at

http://www.thespidersparlor.com/vbscript

Work SMARTER not HARDER. The Spider's Parlor's Admin Script Pack is a collection of Administrative scripts designed to make IT Administration easier! Save time, get more work done, get the Admin Script Pack.

 

[ntinlin]

As well as NDR's you might also want to check that you have OOF to the Internet and Auto-Replies turned off as well.

Neill

 

[58sniper]

The reasons for having an SMTP connector is because it's Org based, whereas an SMTP Virtual Server is server based.

Pat Richard
Microsoft Exchange MVP

 

[jkupski]

Helo is for standard SMTP servers while ehlo is for Exchange servers.

Mark,

I have always found your posts to be very informative, but in this case you are incorrect. EHLO is defined in RFC 1869, and is used by the client to inform the server that it supports SMTP extensions, and to determine if the server supports SMTP extensions.

All modern MTAs support this mode, and it has nothing to do with Exchange.

 

[markdmac]

You are correct jkupski, with ehlo the server will respond with it's capabilities and I've always used it to verify Exchange is installed, so I did misrepresent its functionality.

Thanks for pointing out my error so others are not mislead by it.

I hope you find this post helpful.

Regards,

Mark

Check out my scripting solutions at

http://www.thespidersparlor.com/vbscript

Work SMARTER not HARDER. The Spider's Parlor's Admin Script Pack is a collection of Administrative scripts designed to make IT Administration easier! Save time, get more work done, get the Admin Script Pack.

 

[Dfig]

Thanks guys for the useful info. You guys are a great resource.....Dfig

 

[58sniper]

I have always found your posts to be very informative, but in this case you are incorrect. EHLO is defined in RFC 1869, and is used by the client to inform the server that it supports SMTP extensions, and to determine if the server supports SMTP extensions.

All modern MTAs support this mode, and it has nothing to do with Exchange.

Actually, ehlo is an extension (enhancement) of helo. It's not used by a client (such as Outlook). It's used by a sending server when communicating with the destination server as part of the handshake. It provides for a readable format of the extensions supported by the destination server (such as support for extended status codes, size, etc)

RFC 1869 only defines the basic extensions, but does not include those that begin with "X", such as those typically applied by messaging hygiene products.

Pat Richard
Microsoft Exchange MVP

 

[strongm]

>It's not used by a client ... a sending server

In the SMTP world a sending server is referred to as the client.

>RFC 1869 only defines the basic extensions, but does not include those that begin with "X"

Why (and how) would it define them? Not even the later RFC 2821 does that. Extensions starting with "X" refer to a local SMTP service extensions which are (and it is the whole point of them) proprietary.

 

[jkupski]

58sniper,

As strongm noted (thanks for the assist) I was speaking from the SMTP side of things where "client" is defined as the initiator of the connection. In this context, Outlook is not a client (though it has several client functions) but rather an MUA.

Yes, I know that EHLO is an enhancement of HELO (I figured that went without saying, since I was referring to an RFC.) I was addressing the comment that EHLO was specific to exchange, and not trying to provide a primer on extended SMTP.