Windows Server - Designating a Host Instance/Send Handler for a Dynamic SMTP Port

Asked By KellyMead

17-Oct-07 05:31 PM

Hi All,

How do I designate the Host Instance/Send Handler for a Dynamic Port to use?

I have created a dynamic SMTP port, but it appears that this port always
uses the "default" host instance (BizTalkServerHostInstance).  I have created
a separate host & host instance, and I have created an SMTP adapter send
handler for the separate host instance (I'm not sure this matters for a
dynamic port) but if the default host instance is disabled, the email won't
be sent.

I have confirmed that the orchestration is bound to the correct host
instance, and there isn't a port setting to identify the binding.

Is there a way to designate the Host Instance within the Message Assignment
shape in the orchestration, or is there some other way to force it to use the
correct Host Instance?

Thanks for your help!

Kelly

--
BizTalk 2006
SQL Server 2005

19-Oct-07 02:09 PM

My understanding and experience is that the default host set for the adapter
is used in dynamic ports.  Doesn't matter which host the orchestration runs
under.  There isn't a way to pick which one gets used.  A bummer.  You could
make your desired host the "default" and then still leave the remaining SMTP
hosts for other ports to bind directly to.
--
Richard Seroter
http://seroter.wordpress.com

19-Oct-07 02:20 PM

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:09:02 -0700, Richard Seroter

This is my experience, also... and I can't understand why they have
done it this way.

The whole idea is to let you create hosts so you can have minimum
rights assigned to all hosts. But this way, if I need to use dynamiac
hosts to access more than one smtp server, I must just hope they use
the same username/password for basic authentification, if that is in
use...

--
eliasen, representing himself and not the company he works for.

Private blog: http://blog.eliasen.dk

Private email: jan@eliasen.dk

19-Oct-07 04:17 PM

Thanks Richard.

Hopefully this is something that will be fixed somewhere down the line.  We
are running very separate applications that we really want to keep separate,
so this is pretty much a bummer.  Perhaps we'll just have to create another
Host for just the Dynamic stuff, but this seems like a huge waste and pain.

It's a bummer, but I guess we'll have to live with it.

Thanks for the response!

Kelly

--
BizTalk 2006
SQL Server 2005