Windows SBS 2003 - Remote Web Workplace & E-mail Question

I have been reading this site for the last week or so and I can see that there are definitely some people here that could help me out with the problems I am having.

Here is my setup.

I am running Windows SBS 2003 on a cable broadband connection with 2 NICs and a static IP address. I have one NIC connected directly to the router and configured as the Internet link (By this I mean that the router’s Port Forwarding points to this NIC) and one connected to a switch on the LAN which is configured as the DHCP server.

LAN IP Addresses
Router = 192.168.0.1
NIC 1 (LAN) = 192.168.0.10
NIC 2 (Internet) = 192.168.0.11

Subnet Mask = 255.255.255.0

Reserved Addresses:
192.168.0.1 "“ 192.168.0.10

Internet Port (Set on Router "“ My Static IP)
IP Address 24.75.203.34
IP Subnet Mask 255.255.255.252
Default Gateway 24.75.203.33
DNS 24.51.159.130, 24.51.159.133

Ports Forwarding from Router to NIC 2

• 20-21 (FTP)
• 25 (SMTP)
• 80 (HTTP)
• 1723 (PPTP)
• 4125 (RWW)

​

Problem # 1: Remote Access

I have gone through the setup for the remote access and Internet connection multiple times now and I consistently have the same issue. I can see the default SBS screen when I type in my IP address (http://24.75.203.34/), but I cannot access any of the links with the exception of the Client Help page. My main priority (right now) is to be able to access the Remote Web Workplace (http://24.75.203.34/Remote).

I have even setup a web site using IIS and was able to access that from the web. So I was assuming that it isn’t any type of connection issue. Am I missing a necessary port that needs to be open for the Remote Web Workplace?

Any suggestions? I can provide more info if necessary.


Problem # 2: E-mail/Exchange Issue

I currently have the server setup to use the POP3 connection manager to download e-mail from my web hosting provider. This is working fine, but I can’t seem to send e-mail to anyone that has an e-mail address on the same domain.

For example, if my e-mail is me@test.com, I cannot send to anyone that has an anyuser@test.com e-mail address. I can, however, send e-mail to any other domain without any problems. Is there something special I need to do to get it to send through my mail server for my e-mail provider? Or bypass their mail server? As long I as can get the e-mail out I will be happy. I saw a similar post, but it seems as though the topic was never quite closed…


Any help or comments would be greatly appreciated. I am fairly new to the server side of things, so please bear with me!

 

LAN IP Addresses
NIC 1 (LAN) = 192.168.0.10
NIC 2 (Internet) = 192.168.0.11
Subnet Mask = 255.255.255.0

A caveat here - I am no kind of SBS guy. Never worked with them. My home network is way to small to need one and my work environment is way too large. So if SBS is doing something odd or allowing/forcing something I think is illegal, please let me know.

The network settings on that server could be made to work, maybe, sort of, if you did quite a few really strange and interesting things. That is 'work' as in not blow up though. Generally it just causes a variety of unusual problems. Generally it isn't a good solution to any situation I can think of.

What were you trying to accomplish by having 2 Nics on the same subnet in one machine? I imagine we can find an easier way to do whatever it is.

 

From what I had read, I thought both NICs had to be on the same subnet. Judging by your response, I'm guessing that is not the case? I thought that since the router was setup on that subnet (locally) that both NICs would need to be on that same subnet in order to work.

Basically, I wanted one NIC to manage LAN tasks and the other for the incoming connection(s) such as VPN, Remote Access, etc...

 

2 NICs in a single machine (other than teamed so they look to the world like one big NIC) on the same subnet is likely to give both you and your server massive headaches.

If what you are looking for is extra network bandwidth for the server, you can probably team the network cards. If not, easy enough to buy a brand that does allow this. They basically load balance the network traffic but are seen as a single NIC. Also bear in mind that if you have the usual broadband connection, it is such a narrow pipe when compared to the amount of traffic a wired NIC can handle that you aren't likely to have a bottleneck there. Fast broadband other than T1/T3 is probably going to max out at under 5Mbps and the NIC is easily able to handle 100Mbps while the router/switch (if that's what you have) can probably provide 100Mbps to all it's ports simultaneously without breaking a sweat.

I'd hesitate to even try dealing with your other issues until you see how much is resolved by unconfusing the server.

For now, how about just unbinding one of them from TCP/IP or disabling it (accomplishes pretty much the same thing) and seeing how things go. Probably easiest to tweak the port forwarding settings to the card that is now doing DHCP, etc. so that's the approach I'd take.

We'll plan to follow along on this thread until you are running smoothly.

 

Thanks for the help! I'll try that tomorrow and see what happens....I'll definitely be back here to let you know!

-Rob

 

Well, I am feeling pretty dumb today. I followed your advice about disabling the one NIC and I went through the Internet & E-mail configuration Wizard again. After running that with only the one card, my remote web workplace worked over the Internet.

The reason I feel dumb is that I realized I had put the second NIC in the server before I configured DNS, DHCP, etc. So it was me that was causing the problem from the beginning.


I am still experiencing the e-mail problem, however. My e-mail problem is almost the same as fshrago was having in this post: http://windowsbbs.com/showthread.php?t=40032 Unfortunately, that thread was never really resolved.

I don't have a problem when I e-mail myself at the external (POP3) e-mail address, only when I try to send to another user.

Here is the error message I get:

The e-mail account does not exist at the organization this message was sent to. Check the e-mail address, or contact the recipient directly to find out the correct address. <gocmm.com #5.1.1>

So to put it simply if I send an e-mail to me@gocmm.com it is sent and received fine. If I send to joe_user@gocmm.com I receive the error message above.

Clearly I need to do some more reading on Exchange Server 2003. There are a few things I need to figure out. If any of these aren't possible, please let me know.

• Add a global address book for all the POP3 e-mail addresses.
• Add a "mailing list" type address book which is only available to specific users.

Also, if anyone has any recommendations for a good Exchange spam filter app, please let me know.

Thanks!

Rob

 

Take a look Here for a good how-to on making your internal exchange server email addresses work with the internet (adding SMTP data to your email accounts).

Distribution List how-to Here with more information Here and Here

 

SMF, how are things going? I have set up SBS 2003 (full implementation) for two clients and I have just ordered another one. I am very familiar with it (confidence - dangerous!) and would like to hear how you're doing.

With respect to sending external mail, are all the users on the domain getting their mail through SBS Exchange? I had some users that wanted to access their email through their existing pop3 client at home so I set them up to get their email directly instead of through Exchange. The only problem was that if the non-pop3 users wanted to send them mail that they could see at home, they would have to send it externally instead of through the server. So I set up an additional account in their outlook client to send mail directly to an external smtp server.

Are you still using the pop3 connector? I use the pop3 connector so that my ISP handles spam/antivirus issues (they have brightmail). Much cheaper than doing it on the server! The desktop outlook client (v. 2003) has a good spam filter, and I installed NAV small office pack on the workstations. The only problem I have is that NAV small office pack won't install on SBS (Looking for an antivirus solution for this right now).

Happy configuring!

 

tiredtechie,

I haven't been spending much time on the e-mail side of things right now, but I hope to get back to it shortly. I will let you know more once I have played around with it some more.

My current situation for the e-mail is this: I have a webhosting provider that we have been using since before I purchased the server that is providing us with POP3 e-mails through that domain. I am converting only a few users to the SBS 2003 initially, so I am only using the POP3 Connection Manager for those users (for now, until I work out all the bugs). Once I have it working stable enough, I hope to convert all the POP3 e-mail users to the server and provide e-mail access through the Outlook Web Access. The reason I must do it this way is because most of these users are on a Thin Client system that is not under my control and is very flakey. I figure by using the POP3 connection manager, I will at least be able to manage the mailbox sizes and file storage which has been an issue with the webhost's "web-mail" as well as the Outlook client through the Thin Client system. This has been a big problem lately because we send many large PDF's around the office (from faxes & scanners, etc.)

Does all that make sense? It's not the ideal situation, but it's what I've got right now. Unfortunately I CANNOT convert all my users to PC's and get them off the Thin Clients. I have a small number of real PC's in my office which are connected to the server.

I also maintain the website through the webhost and I want to convert that to reside on the server as well. Only so many hours in the day though!

I'm also still looking for a good server-side anti-virus/spam/anti-spyware utility (or utilities). I think Panda Anti-Virus may have a decent solution that may fit the budget. I have been in contact with a rep there but haven't had a ton of time to pursue this further. Let me know if you make any progress on that front.

Thanks,

-Rob