Posts
254
Comments
120
Trackbacks
120
July 2007 Entries
Bouncing email to Exchange 2007 distribution groups

A few days ago, I was asked to track down what was, on the surface, a troubling problem with Exchange 2003: bounced messages to addresses I knew for a fact existed in the organization. They were both generating a 5.1.1 User unknown SMTP error.

As you can imagine, we have several distribution and security groups in our Active Directory deployment for various purposes. Mysteriously, two of these mail-enabled groups -- we'll call them Foo and Bar -- had started bouncing messages sent to them externally. Both Foo and Bar were created years ago and had given me very little problems under both Exchange 2003 and Exchange 2007. I could send message to Foo internally and have it work, but Bar was completely toast.

Since Bar wasn't working at all, I tackled that one first. Long story short: the group had somehow gotten purged from Active Directory. Whoops! Easy fix, though; create the group, give it the right email address, add the correct members, and voila! it's fixed.

Except it's not. Now Bar is doing the same thing Foo is doing: messages sent internally are fine, messages coming from the Internet are getting a lovely 5.1.1 error still. Time to pull up the objects in Exchange Management Shell and see what I can find:

[PS] C:\>Get-DistributionGroup Foo | fl

...
RequireSenderAuthenticationEnabled : True
...

Oh, geez. Somehow, the "Require sender to authenticate" checkbox got turned on for this group; anonymous incoming connections aren't authenticated, therefore Exchange won't accept this group as a recipient. This setting is set to True by default when you create new distribution groups in EMS or EMC, BTW, so don't forget to turn it off if you need to:

[PS] C:\>Set-DistributionGroup Foo -RequireSenderAuthenticationEnabled $False

Hope this helps!

posted @ Friday, July 27, 2007 6:24 PM | Feedback (1)
Microsoft Open Source

Okay, this is pretty cool: the Microsoft Open Source website is now available for perusal. The initial focus is on the SharePoint Learning Kit, which looks like it will be a big help if you want to build an e-cirriculum site and want to use SharePoint.

The thing I find most interesting about this, though, is how Microsoft has a growing portfolio of products and initiatives that are blending the traditional lines (and I'm using lines here in the battle sense) of commercial software vs. open source. While the SLK is free, it does require SharePoint 3.0, which in turn requires Windows Server 2003 or better and the .NET Framework 2.0; while SPS 3.0 and .NET 2.0 are free, you have to buy Windows to get them. Many people will use that as a reason to dismiss any offering that Microsoft makes, which I think is incredibly short-sighted of them.

There's no intrinsic law of software that makes either the traditional commercial development model ("closed source" for short) or the open source model better than the other in every circumstance. Both models have many strengths and corresponding weaknesses to offer, all of which have been identified and discussed for years. What stands out to me is that an arguable number of the more successful open source projects have been backed by corporate resources of some sort or other, whether it be companies such as SGI contributing Linux kernel patches as they find and fix problems that limited SMP performance, or organizations that are formed to provide the financial resources necessary to allow full-time developers to work on a project. There's this image floating out there in the collective concsciousness that open source somehow equals a complete lack of centralized management, with priorities being decided by consensus and fiat ("Sorry that you don't think feature Foo is important, Joe but I finished coding it last night and checked it in.") and a continuing dependence on the goodwill of a vastly dispersed faceless crowd of geeks in basements to get unsexy, boring plumbing code finished. This may be true of many projects -- but they aren't the ones that make a name for themselves, that produce quality releases, and that get used.

I'm particularly interested in the projects whose success is directly attributable to a company that provides the developers and management skills to guide the day-to-day work of the project -- gathering requirements, writing specs, setting milestones, and assigning the responsibility for writing the deadly boring libraries and classes that form the heart of the project (without which performance will suffer and the code will bloat). It's this last part that is in my mind truly key: having developers you can hold accountable to write code and fix bugs even when individuals leave the project. There are ways to make this happen, but the most reliable way is a time-honored tradition: a paycheck. And whatever flaws you may think Microsoft has, they certainly have deep pockets and can afford a paycheck or two.

posted @ Friday, July 27, 2007 6:03 PM | Feedback (0)
New blog about the archival industry

Hey, all. I'm not dead yet, just heads-down in work and the forthcoming DPM book that Ryan and I are writing. (Ignore the "2008" bit; that's a typo and the good folks at Wiley are working on fixing it.)

Just wanted to take a minute to tell you about a new blog that Exchange MVP Martin Tuip has started: Archiving101.com. It's sparse on content right now as he's just kicked it off, but Martin's been around the archival industry and worked for many of the key players in the space (and has earned himself a lot of teasing and heckling from his fellow MVPs because of it!) I'll be interested to see what insights he has to offer.

posted @ Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5:32 PM | Feedback (0)
News

Devin has moved on
to new adventures.
This blog is preserved
for historical purposes.

Please follow his
personal blog at:

Devin on Earth


Virtual Devin