Running a Zimbra server, and came across this today. 2 fqdn and 1 ip (ptr lookup).

Is there a simple way of avoiding the rejection of the email ?

ip in questions is 198.160.191.6 ( sending server)

and the pandemonium..is the sending server.

@dafyre Yes, ntfs

What are folks using to recover a deleted/corrupted partition these days.
I haven't had to do this in a number of years, at that time 'test disk' was my go to utility.

@dbeato looks like I need version 8.8.9 (or newer) in order to use the 2.0 Oauth to sync google calendar.
thanks everybody

@dbeato the second link, is that for a 'google app'?

@dbeato yes, I saw those. the 2.0 Oauth etc. However I couldn't get it to work. I am using zimbra 8.7.6 I wonder if an upgrade is required.

@scottalanmiller They currently use google calendar, it would be a transition period. Once they get used to Zimbra calendar, Zimbra would be the master.

Anybody having success with the subject line ?

To confirm the change to "run as system" , it worked well. Had to utilize the 'net use' for user /permissions. I see there is a thread about automating that. Will investigate.
thanks everybody

@Reid-Cooper windows side, the Linux side isn't an issue whatsoever. I am liking the solution suggested by wrx7m. Won't be able to test until tonight.

@wrx7m , I have not. I wonder what username it would use when it copies to the linux box. Perhaps, making a backup
on the Windows server, and then a second script to copy it to the Linux server.

Greetings, Is there a simple way to write a batch file that is elevated, so that a service can be shutdown ?
What I am is doing is using robocopy to copy a database to a linux box. To shutdown the database , I need the elevated level to shutdown the database service. I can do it manually, however, the objective is to have it done daily in task scheduler.

greetings, I have become confused or deluded. Nonetheless, what I am trying to accomplish is a simple
kvm virtualized setup, The Host has a static routable IP, and all traffic to be forwarded to a firewall/router, then nat'ed to
2 or 3 vms. The vms need to be reachable from the Internet (outside). I thought I could set this up on a local lan, and simulate a 'real production' type of deployment. I have used 192.168.23.5/24 as the static ip. This is how far I have been able to get. the hostname's reflect the function of the box. I think I may have read to many guides/tutorials, that cover too many years. I am also trying to do this with cli only, as generally when I do things this way, I develop a better understanding of the pieces and how they interact. I am struggling on completing the bridge part. I thought I could just apply the static ip (192.168.23.5) to the interface of the firewall/router and connect it to the bridge. However I ahve not had any success in doing that and turn to this group for guidance.

and the info from the host ( I have removed any reference to other nic's that won't be used on the host)
root@host:~# ip a
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1
link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 ::1/128 scope host
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
2: eno1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc mq master br0 state UP group default qlen 1000
link/ether 78:2b:cb:1e:fc:c8 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
7: vnet0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1000
link/ether fe:54:00:42:e4:ff brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
8: br0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP group default qlen 1000
link/ether 78:2b:cb:1e:fc:c8 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.23.5/24 brd 192.168.23.255 scope global br0
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 fe80::7a2b:cbff:fe1e:fcc8/64 scope link
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

and the firewall/router

any/all advice is appreciated.

@scottalanmiller

correct.

@scottalanmiller

because they aren't free, (possibly only 1 static IP is available, although I think that would be rare) I was just putting out that scenario, to ensure I understand a prudent network layout for virtualization, when you want to have some VM's available to the 'outside'. If the VM's were not 'big' production type servers (where the volume/traffic is low),Using 1 static makes more sense (of course I think, I understand the arguments that could be made against such a notion). In the case I mentioned, or constraints you have to work with, would that be a sensical way of doing it ? I can see that if the VM's are only to be accessed from within a local LAN, you could have a number of setups. However, is it still a good idea to not run anything on the host, that is not necessary, much like the advice given for using XS.

thanks for your replies, What i understand is, that don't want to run anything on the host, and bridge the host to another VM which you would use as firewall, router etc. So if you had 2 Vm's to run ( 1 as an web server and a 2nd as a mail server), you would still need NAT, given that you have only 1 static/routable ip address.

I am new to KVM, however I have a basic kvm installation working. The default setup is nat, and works well. However, I am curious at to what is recommended when you need a VM or 2 to be accessed from the internet. With respect to networking, bridge or routed or keep the nat and apply all those 'rich' rules firewalld needs.