After all there might be a way to use IIS worker process mode. And you don't have to plug hotfixes during initial setup. And it's a way to run Exchange on W2k3 DC. And many more of that kind.
Mostly agree, but playing with it a few days for self-satisfaction surely won't hurt anyone. And note that I never talked about being "economically useful".
"Andy Webb" <aw...@austin.swinc.com.spamsucks.com> wrote in message news:OmJPU8KRDHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Yes, in fact process impersonation is different in Windows 2003. Further, there is more to OWA and Exchange Admin and mail delivery than ISAPI extensions.
Why do you think Windows 2003 in a dumbed down IIS 5 permissive configuration is better than Windows 2000 with URLScan and the current IIS rollup?
There are, so far, no signs why it should be necessary. The question should not be "is it possible", but rather is it economically useful. Given the risk, the investment in time and effort and the potential for lurking, unseen problems, I would say no.
So far your justification of this curiosity isn't compelling. Why spend days on this when you can set up a Win2K box in a couple hours and move on to a more interesting and useful task?
ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released
"Dmitry Korolyov" <d...@mail.ru> wrote in message news:%230AqG2KRDHA.1560@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
getting closer to the subject here. Yes, security settings are different, but is it completely impossible to emulate IIS 5.0 environment? You can use IIS 5.0 isolation mode and try various configurations.
Does that mean that IIS 6.0 is incompatible to IIS 5.0 in a way of implementing ISAPI extensions (which is all that needed by Exchange)? Don't think so, cuz it would be pretty stupid to release a new version which has inpompatible ISAPI filters implementation - this would make many of the existing apps not work. And, it is never stated by MS that it has incompatibilities in ISAPI.
What next, different way of impersonation and different security settings regarding process impersonation. What if we use IIS 5.0 isolation mode with Low or Medium app pooling level? What if we configure different account to run IIS on? This will affect other web applications? C'mon, you never want to host Exchange and serious web sites at the same box, so this should not be a problem.
In other words: there are no signs that it should be impossible, the point is in finding correct configuration.
"Martin Tuip [MVP]" <mt...@cdolive.com.nospam> wrote in message news:e9KDAuKRDHA.email@example.com...
1. No. It doesnt'
Regarding the platform. IIS 6 has different security settings and these cannot be ported to Exchange 2000. I know that you can get Exchange 2000 run on Windows 95. There is a nifty program called VMWare which will help you get E2k running on Win95. I for instance have Exchange 2003 running here on Windows XP in VMWare ;)
What are to you the reasons MS did these changes ?
Exchange 2000 List owner
"Dmitry Korolyov" <d...@mail.ru> wrote in message news:uQ9c5oKRDHA.firstname.lastname@example.org...
(Skip first paragraph)
The justification is:
1. Exchange 2003 does not have instant messaging features. Does it?
2. No need to pay extra money for yet another license
And plus the "entertaining" factors I've mentioned before.
What is the need to make a product which does not work on a certain platform? What is the need to artificially make it not work on that certain platform? What is the need to insist that some combination of products won't work while actually it does work? What is the need to remove features from a product and make them available in a separate product rather then in the next version?
Do you know the answer?
P.S. If I figure out how to make Exchange 2000 run on windows 95 with no domains, I'll notify you personally.
"Andy Webb" <aw...@austin.swinc.com.spamsucks.com> wrote in message news:usCInZKRDHA.email@example.com...
Of course, you're right. We should all be banging our heads against the wall figuring out how to make this work rather than working on useful production implementation models. Rather than working on Exchange 2003 implementation and upgrade strategies, we should be focusing on a combination of software that should not be ever run in production. If you can figure out how to make it run on Windows NT 3.1, that would be entertaining too.
Exchange 2003 is out. Use it if you want to run Exchange on Windows 2003.
If Exchange 2000 is /required/, then use Windows 2000.
What is the justification for needing to cross the versions like you are doing?
"Dmitry Korolyov" <d...@mail.ru> wrote in message news:eeuM$9JRDHA.firstname.lastname@example.org...
By "support is required" you meant PSS and I did say that this is not required and you did understand it.
By posting this message about OWA I wanted to (possibly) attract some attention of someone who does not think that Microsoft is the center of the world and PSS know everything.
Getting OWA work is simply a technical task and not a "quest to prove MS being wrong" as you seem to get it. If you aren't interested in solving technical stuff why did you go into IT anyways? If you weren't interested in this particular question why posting meanless message (you first one) instead of saving your time and hitting Shift-Del?
"Mark Fugatt [MVP]" <n...@4mcts.com> wrote in message news:uC0pW4JRDHA.2344@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I am not getting into an argument with you on your quest to try and prove Microsoft wrong, and yes you did say support is required or you would not have posted your question to this group, if you dont get an answer to your question here then I would recommend you call Microsoft PSS and see if they can resolve it for you.
"Dmitry Korolyov" <d...@mail.ru> wrote in message news:%23I$K01JRDHA.712@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Sarcasm again, did I say that support is required? Or did I say that such setup is to be used on a production system?
The key idea is to make OWA work. In one article MS says that Exchange 2000 just will not install on W2k3 Server and they are wrong here already, it does install. In other article they say that it will not work this way, and here they wrong again - it does work. Well except for OWA, but who would use OWA, a solution based on a very insecure IIS (5.0 at least, didnt have time to play around 6.0 enough), in a production environment?
Only those who install SP4 on production servers next day after release (you have to really care not about your servers, job and company to do that!). Well, just another reason to make it WORK after all and make MS wrong one more time. Don't you think so?
"Mark Fugatt [MVP]" <n...@4mcts.com> wrote in message news:eM6PbqJRDHA.2276@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Just because you may have it installed does not mean it is support, I for one would not recommend anyone try to install Exchange 2000 on a Windows 2003 box if they wish to continue receiving any level of support.
"Dmitry Korolyov" <d...@mail.ru> wrote in message news:OnD3xkJRDHA.2204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
very much thanks for your extremely valuable input,
but if you read my message again you will probably find out that Exchange 2000 does install on Windows Server 2003 and does work. Everything works - routing, message delivery, recipient update services, etc. OWA is the only thing which does not work, but I believe this is configurable. IIS 6.0 has significant changes from 5.0, and this is most likely the cause. I was actually asking someone who played with such configuration and found a solution - i.e. IIS 6.0 configuration which makes OWA work perfectly.
P.S. Yes, I did know about the article you provided before posting original message.
"Mark Fugatt [MVP]" <n...@4mcts.com> wrote in message news:uQriycJRDHA.2676@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Microsoft Exchange MVP
"Dmitry Korolyov" <d...@mail.ru> wrote in message news:OJl5WZIRDHA.2128@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Anyone knows how to get OWA working in this configuration?
Everything else works just fine except for OWA. I'm receiving authentication errors when trying to connect to OWA. Tried both in IIS5.0 and in worker process isolation mode, still no luck.