Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of dbashley1
dbashley1

asked on

Configure SMTP settings

Having trouble getting the correct settings for smtp servers.

I have a web application the runs under two load balanced web servers.  Each server is running Windows 2003 Web Server and IIS 6.

I have set the FQDN in smtp server to "ultracamp.com" (the domain)

Here is a return response I recieved that is typical.

******************************
Return-Path: <notice@ultracamp.com>
Received: (qmail 21806 invoked by uid 0); 18 Jun 2008 21:29:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ultracamp.com) (72.13.100.99)
  by 0 with SMTP; 18 Jun 2008 21:29:15 -0000
Received: from ucweb1 ([127.0.0.1]) by ultracamp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
       Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:29:09 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: loliveira@ontario.org
Sender: notice@ultracamp.com
To: suzyg@3below.com
Reply-To: loliveira@ontario.org
Date: 18 Jun 2008 17:29:09 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary=--boundary_6057_b902245a-dd9b-4698-a116-7cdb2a38e4d1
Return-Path: notice@ultracamp.com
Message-ID: <UCWEB1HFKpO2DTSWFSS00002678@ultracamp.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2008 21:29:09.0000 (UTC) FILETIME=[57DF4080:01C8D18A]
*********************************

It would seem there are two issues in the respone.
1. from unknown (HELO ultracamp.com)
2.  from "ucweb1 ([127.0.0.1])".....It really shouldn't show the computer name......should it?

I don't know what to do to correct this.

Thanks for your help.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Avatar of David Beveridge
David Beveridge
Flag of Australia image

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Avatar of dbashley1
dbashley1

ASKER

The reverse dns has been set for a few years now.  Not sure why it wouldn't be able to find it.
It could have been a transient/temporary error.
Do you still receive the same results now?