The customer has an Exchange 2000 A/A cluster and both the EVS are running on the same node. They are running SP3 (original release). On EVS2 EXBPA reported: - Software update available (latest roll-up) - SMTP server accepts Basic Auth - SMTP server allows anonymous None of these were reported for EVS1 for some reason. Is this expected behaviour? Thanks Simon
Yes, due to the way we scan clusters, this is expected behavior. You should however, verify these rules against each EVS. Cheers, -- Paul Bowden Program Manager Exchange Server Best Practices Analyzer http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/analyzers This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. "Simon Walsh" wrote in message news:OR2UeaXXGHA.4924@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > The customer has an Exchange 2000 A/A cluster and both the EVS are running > on the same node. > They are running SP3 (original release). > > On EVS2 EXBPA reported: > - Software update available (latest roll-up) > - SMTP server accepts Basic Auth > - SMTP server allows anonymous > > None of these were reported for EVS1 for some reason. > > Is this expected behaviour? > > Thanks > Simon >
Thanks Paul, /Simon "Paul Bowden [MSFT]" wrote in message news:eC7OEgXXGHA.3972@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Yes, due to the way we scan clusters, this is expected behavior. You > should however, verify these rules against each EVS. > > Cheers, > > -- > Paul Bowden > Program Manager > Exchange Server Best Practices Analyzer > http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/analyzers > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no > rights. > > "Simon Walsh" wrote in message > news:OR2UeaXXGHA.4924@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> The customer has an Exchange 2000 A/A cluster and both the EVS are >> running on the same node. >> They are running SP3 (original release). >> >> On EVS2 EXBPA reported: >> - Software update available (latest roll-up) >> - SMTP server accepts Basic Auth >> - SMTP server allows anonymous >> >> None of these were reported for EVS1 for some reason. >> >> Is this expected behaviour? >> >> Thanks >> Simon >> > >
