My Exchange 2000 server handles four different e-mail domains but only users
that have one of these e-mail domains gets access to OWA. For the others
they get three login attempts and then auth. failure.

If i add the "working" smtp domain address to a non-working user its works
just fine.

I have created receipint policys for all users that automatlicly creates
mail addresses depending on the attribute "company" and everything else,
except web access, works just fine.

How can i make this work?

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Sorry, just found MS Article 293386

Problem solved

"Peter" <peter@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23zwoHH6KEHA.2576@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> My Exchange 2000 server handles four different e-mail domains but only
users
> that have one of these e-mail domains gets access to OWA. For the others
> they get three login attempts and then auth. failure.
>
> If i add the "working" smtp domain address to a non-working user its works
> just fine.
>
> I have created receipint policys for all users that automatlicly creates
> mail addresses depending on the attribute "company" and everything else,
> except web access, works just fine.
>
> How can i make this work?
>
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

There will be a "Default" Domain name that the HTTP Virtual Server is bound
to, any users that want to use it MUST have a SMTP address at this domain
name even if they don't use it

"Peter" <peter@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23zwoHH6KEHA.2576@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> My Exchange 2000 server handles four different e-mail domains but only
users
> that have one of these e-mail domains gets access to OWA. For the others
> they get three login attempts and then auth. failure.
>
> If i add the "working" smtp domain address to a non-working user its works
> just fine.
>
> I have created receipint policys for all users that automatlicly creates
> mail addresses depending on the attribute "company" and everything else,
> except web access, works just fine.
>
> How can i make this work?
>
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]