headers
Jonathan Hawkins | 1 Nov 2006 02:26
Picon

Re: Integration!

Jeff,

The session authentication is managed by Access Manager.  If your web
applications are built on the Access Manager SDK, then Single Sign-On
(SSO) should work across these applications.

Keep in mind that this is at a 500 foot level.  In addition to the AM
SDK integration, it will require much configuration to the JavaScript
and HTML files in both the UWC and mshttpd.  These modifications might
be later rewritten by patch updates, so you will need to save and
merge changes with these patch updates.

Jonathan

On 10/31/06, Jeffrey Ramsay <jramsay@...> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is it possible to integrate custom pages within UWC and use the current
> session authentication to update user preferences using third party
> tools? We use spamassassin and mimedefang with ldap user preferences and
> would like to offer our users an integrated interface to manage the account.
>
> Thanks,
> -Jeff
>
> --
> Jeffrey J. Ramsay
> Systems Administrator (SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA)
> Utica College
> 1600 Burrstone Road
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Hockenberry,Roger | 1 Nov 2006 02:38
Picon
Favicon

RE: Integration!

Jonathon is correct.

If you have authenticated using the AM SDK then you should have the
session token. If your other apps are protected by AM and accept the
session token, then you can build links in UWC and have it accept the
token.

It will depend on your setup, how you've integrated Spamassassin and
mimedefang into your enterprise SSO.

/r

------------------------------------
Roger Hockenberry | Director, Gartner Consulting | 4501 North Fairfax Dr
Arlington, VA 22203 | Office: 703.387.5783 | Mobile: 202.253.8805 |
EMail: roger.hockenberry@... 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hawkins [mailto:jonathan.t.hawkins@...] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 8:26 PM
To: Info-iMS@...
Subject: Re: [Info-iMS] Integration!

Jeff,

The session authentication is managed by Access Manager.  If your web
applications are built on the Access Manager SDK, then Single Sign-On
(SSO) should work across these applications.

Keep in mind that this is at a 500 foot level.  In addition to the AM
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jeffrey Ramsay | 1 Nov 2006 04:04
Favicon

Re: Integration!

Thanks guys -- we haven't deployed AM yet so this is a bummer.

-Jeff

Hockenberry,Roger wrote:
> Jonathon is correct.
> 
> If you have authenticated using the AM SDK then you should have the
> session token. If your other apps are protected by AM and accept the
> session token, then you can build links in UWC and have it accept the
> token.
> 
> It will depend on your setup, how you've integrated Spamassassin and
> mimedefang into your enterprise SSO.
> 
> /r
> 
> ------------------------------------
> Roger Hockenberry | Director, Gartner Consulting | 4501 North Fairfax Dr
> Arlington, VA 22203 | Office: 703.387.5783 | Mobile: 202.253.8805 |
> EMail: roger.hockenberry@... 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Hawkins [mailto:jonathan.t.hawkins@...] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 8:26 PM
> To: Info-iMS@...
> Subject: Re: [Info-iMS] Integration!
> 
> Jeff,
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
matteo martini | 1 Nov 2006 14:09
Picon

Re: Cannot kill Dispatcher

Sun can provide you with IDR to fix this.

On 10/28/06, Pavel Urban <pavel.urban@...> wrote:
> Ahh.. so we're in beta-tests again? ;-) Nevermind and thanks.
>
> The original problem is that we had to replace old servers due to
> hardware insufficiency. With the new servers, we've seen a lot of
> connections being made to them, but these connections were somehow
> 'slow' - the other end connected, sent two or three mails...and kept the
> connection. After some time, it send other two mails... and so on. There
> were hundreds clients like that. I think it is some kind of zombie
> network trying to deliver its junk.
>
> The problem is that such connections drained all available
> tcp_smtp_server-s and other 'good' clients couldn't be accepted. So I've
> tried to increase MAX_PROCS and MAX_CONNS only to find out that server
> has 95% idle CPU, compiled-in limits are reached and there are still
> just about 1500 established, but idle connections... And then, the
> dispatcher even cannot be restarted.
>
> What can I do with it? I thought about decreasing MAX_IDLE_TIME, but id
> didn't help much in the past...
>
> Thanks!
>
> ps: sorry for duplicate post. multiple mail identities could be a problem...
>
> Kelly Caudill wrote:
> > There is a Solaris kernel bug causing this problem.  An official patch
> > is not yet available, but a few customers have been sent a hotfix.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Regularcoffee | 1 Nov 2006 17:45
Picon

Re: UWC Addressbook contact/entry limits?

All,

piMaxStoreEntries

What is this and does it work?

Thanks,
Joe

On 10/24/06, lisa carr <lcarr@...> wrote:
> Hi,
>   If you're looking to limit the number of entries an individual can
> have in their PAB(personal address book) then you want to use
> local.service.pab.maxnumberofentries.  Per the reference manual, this
> sets the maximum number of entries a single PAB can store.  The default
> is 500 entries.  :)  I don't know if there is way to set a max for the
> entire system, but setting a limit on the individual PABs appears to
> work as it should. You may have to extrapolate ynumber of users x
> ynumber of entries to get the value you actually want to set that too.
> Also I believe there is supposed to be a way to store the individual
> PABs in their own LDAP.  In an ISP setting that might be beneficial as well.
>
> -lisa c
>
> Regularcoffee wrote:
> > I am running Sun Java System Messaging Server 6 2005Q4.
> > Is there a way to limited the number of contacts a individual person
> > or all users on a message server  can have within there addressbook.
> > This is within the context of UWC and Addressbook for UWC.
> >
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
sun forum | 1 Nov 2006 18:45
Picon

WEB2783: Servlet /amserver threw load() exception

Hi folks.

Hope someone can shed some light here on AM

- I had installed Access Manager on Host A w/ all components selected
w/ configure now
- Host A has directory server, web server installed. This AM
configuration are stored in Host A directory server
- Then patch AM using 120955-03 and follow instructions to redeploy
and import xml & ldif files. And finally restart web server
- Everything works okay.

- Problem comes when I install another AM on Host B w/ all components
selected w/ configure now
- Host B only has web server installed
- The installation steps for AM on Host B are exactly the same as Host
A, except Host B AM configuration are stored in Host A directory
server
- When I restart the web server it threw exception error for
/amserver. Pls see below
- Any hint. Is this even the correct way of doing it? Pls advise. Thanks

failure: WebModule[/amserver]: WEB2783: Servlet /amserver threw load() exception
javax.servlet.ServletException: WEB2778: Servlet.init() for servlet
LoginLogoutMapping threw exception
        at org.apache.catalina.core.StandardWrapper.loadServlet(StandardWrapper.java:949)
        at org.apache.catalina.core.StandardWrapper.load(StandardWrapper.java:813)
        at org.apache.catalina.core.StandardContext.loadOnStartup(StandardContext.java:3478)
        at org.apache.catalina.core.StandardContext.start(StandardContext.java:3760)
        at com.iplanet.ias.web.WebModule.start(WebModule.java:251)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Simon Mansbridge | 1 Nov 2006 19:19
Picon

Outlook Connector Deployments

We are looking to do a relatively large Outlook Connector deployment. Can some of you that use this give an
account of your experiences particularly regarding

1) Deployment approach
2) Deployment problems encountered
3) Stability of the solution once deployed
4) Typical problems

Overall has the experience been good and do people think this is as good as Exchange ?

Regards

Simon Mansbridge
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Sebastien Manningham | 1 Nov 2006 20:20
Picon

2 backend IMAP running on differents ports and MMP

Hello,

With IMAP MMP, is there a way to configure the following:

1 MMP running on port 143
1 IMAP server running on the same machine than MMP on port 1143
1 IMAP server running on another mailhost runnng on port 143

I don't see how to do it, because the only paramater is this:
default:BacksidePort 143

Which cause traffic to ALL mailhost going to port 143 (or 1143 if I change it)

-- 
Sébastien Manningham
mannings@...
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Scott Lawson | 1 Nov 2006 22:47
Picon

Re: Calendar Issues

Tom,

Can you supply the details of your OS and patch levels for Calendar 
Server and UWC?

eg.

Calendar Server 116577-?

UWC  118540-

(UWC has been buggy as hell up until relatively recent T-patch levels)

Certainly there are plenty of known bugs and I would urge you to patch 
up to something recent if you
haven't already.

Scott.

tomdc@... wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have a JES2k5Q4 install running, but seem to have problems with the 
> calendar-part.
> UWC is used as a client, but when on the calendar-tab and actually adding 
> an event, inviting other users, the event appears in the user's own 
> calendar, but not in the invitee's one.
> Also using the CAlendar Express itself, it doesn't seem to work.
>
> We first thought there was a problem looking up the users as the LDAP
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Chris Newman | 1 Nov 2006 23:25
Picon

Re: 2 backend IMAP running on differents ports and MMP

Correct.  That is a fundamental limitation of the design and not likely to 
change soon under any circumstances.

Another approach you might try is to create a virtual interface so you have:

1 MMP running port 143 interface 1
1 IMAP running port 143 interface 2 on same machine as MMP
1 IMAP running on another mailhost on port 143

                - Chris

Sebastien Manningham wrote on 11/1/06 2:20 PM -0500:

> Hello,
>
> With IMAP MMP, is there a way to configure the following:
>
> 1 MMP running on port 143
> 1 IMAP server running on the same machine than MMP on port 1143
> 1 IMAP server running on another mailhost runnng on port 143
>
> I don't see how to do it, because the only paramater is this:
> default:BacksidePort 143
>
> Which cause traffic to ALL mailhost going to port 143 (or 1143 if I change it)
>
> --
> Sébastien Manningham
> mannings@...
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane