|
Home > Archive > microsoft.public.exchange2000.admin > October 2002 > Exchange 2000 Static Port Mappings
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Exchange 2000 Static Port Mappings
|
|
| Mark Garcia 2002-10-05, 8:29 pm |
| All,
Our company would like to allow users who travel or work from home to be
able to access our Exchange 2000 server through our firewall. I have
followed the instructions from Q270836 to set this up. The only difference
is that we used port ranges above what was "suggested" (The exact phrase
from the Q article is "Port assignments _should_ be in the range of
1024-5000 decimal."). If I do a port scan of this machine, from within our
network, it does not show these ports as open. A similar configuration on
our EX5.5 server does show these ports as open. Is this an inherent
difference between EX5.5 and EX2K? Any suggestions.
Thanks,
Mark
| |
| Lanwench 2002-10-05, 8:30 pm |
| All I can say is, if you don't use VPN instead, you are asking for trouble.
The ports they're referring to aren't on the server, they're on the
firewall, anbd if you open them all up you're going to turn your firewall
into swiss cheese.
"Mark Garcia" <markgarcia@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:OCuUU8ESCHA.2556@tkmsftngp11...
> All,
>
> Our company would like to allow users who travel or work from home to be
> able to access our Exchange 2000 server through our firewall. I have
> followed the instructions from Q270836 to set this up. The only difference
> is that we used port ranges above what was "suggested" (The exact phrase
> from the Q article is "Port assignments _should_ be in the range of
> 1024-5000 decimal."). If I do a port scan of this machine, from within our
> network, it does not show these ports as open. A similar configuration on
> our EX5.5 server does show these ports as open. Is this an inherent
> difference between EX5.5 and EX2K? Any suggestions.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
>
| |
| Boris Yanushpolsky 2002-10-05, 8:31 pm |
| Why not use OWA?
"Mark Garcia" <markgarcia@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:OCuUU8ESCHA.2556@tkmsftngp11...
> All,
>
> Our company would like to allow users who travel or work from home to be
> able to access our Exchange 2000 server through our firewall. I have
> followed the instructions from Q270836 to set this up. The only difference
> is that we used port ranges above what was "suggested" (The exact phrase
> from the Q article is "Port assignments _should_ be in the range of
> 1024-5000 decimal."). If I do a port scan of this machine, from within our
> network, it does not show these ports as open. A similar configuration on
> our EX5.5 server does show these ports as open. Is this an inherent
> difference between EX5.5 and EX2K? Any suggestions.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
>
| |
| Ed Woodrick 2002-10-05, 8:32 pm |
| VPN = Good
ISA with Outlook Proxy = OK
OWA = OK
Manipulating ports through firewall = not good
"Mark Garcia" <markgarcia@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:OCuUU8ESCHA.2556@tkmsftngp11...
> All,
>
> Our company would like to allow users who travel or work from home to be
> able to access our Exchange 2000 server through our firewall. I have
> followed the instructions from Q270836 to set this up. The only difference
> is that we used port ranges above what was "suggested" (The exact phrase
> from the Q article is "Port assignments _should_ be in the range of
> 1024-5000 decimal."). If I do a port scan of this machine, from within our
> network, it does not show these ports as open. A similar configuration on
> our EX5.5 server does show these ports as open. Is this an inherent
> difference between EX5.5 and EX2K? Any suggestions.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
>
|
|
|
|
|