Messaging Gateway

 View Only
  • 1.  Symantec Brightmail Gateway (SBG) handling of Lotus Shortnames

    Posted Jul 24, 2009 05:51 AM
    Hi, I'm in the process of configuring SBG 8 and our client is using Lotus as their email software of choice. They've configured it to accept shortnames and it worked with the old SBG 7.7. But with the latest version, we chose to enable directory harvest recognition and it doesn't work with the current email system. I haven't changed any settings yet and it has already synchronized with the LDAP and to the CC. 


    I haven't done any testing at the moment. The server where the SBG is getting the list is down.
    Did I miss something here? Thanks.


  • 2.  RE: Symantec Brightmail Gateway (SBG) handling of Lotus Shortnames

    Posted Jul 29, 2009 06:02 PM
    Hi,

    Are you using version 8.0.1-7 or the most recent 8.0.2-12?

    Are you talking about Recipient Validation, if so and you are still on 8.0.1-7:

    Please, check the release notes, we had a fix that corrected the expansion of the macros used for Recipient Validation:
    http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/ent-gate.nsf/docid/2009051416230654

    I am talking specifically about this section:

    %u and %d macros for LDAP recipient validation now properly substituted


    Previously, the %u and %d macros for LDAP recipient validation were not properly substituted. Instead, the macros were passed in the query as the literal strings "%u" and "%d". This would have prevented recipient validation, resulting in all recipients being rejected as "550 Recipient address rejected: User unknown". Now the %u and %d macros are substituted with the user's uid and domain as expected.

    Thank you,
    Marco Bicca



  • 3.  RE: Symantec Brightmail Gateway (SBG) handling of Lotus Shortnames

    Posted Jul 30, 2009 07:00 AM
    Thanks for the reply, Marco.
    I checked and our server is already the 8.0.2 version.
    I'm still in the process of setting it up and I did enable the recipient validation at that time.
    My client then proceeded with removing the configured connections for the Lotus Notes server and I'm going to reconfigure it again. Start fresh. :)
    We also had problems connecting using an administrator ID for authentication. We had to go with anonymous.