July 29, 2002 at 6:40 am
Moving up to SQL 2000 has caused me to be unable to use xp_SendMail in the same fashion I have been using it for over a year. I am still able to send alerts via operators but now I can not send email via the xp_SendMail stored Proc. I get the error message 'Could not resolve recipient' I can take the exact command back to a version 7.00 sever and it works fine. Anyone have any ideas?
July 29, 2002 at 6:55 am
See a ton of posts about it on Google. Might want to weed through them. Try groups.google.com, search for "Could not resolve recipient" and xp_sendmail.
Andy
July 29, 2002 at 7:19 am
I found an article at support.microsoft.com that would probably be very helpful.
"Q1: Why did SQL Mail stop working after I upgraded to SQL Server 2000?
A1:SQL Server 2000 introduces significant changes to SQL Mail. The major change is that SQL Mail now uses the extended Mail Application Programming Interface (MAPI) instead of simple MAPI. For additional information about the differences between simple and extended MAPI, click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
Q200018 INFO: Differences Between CDO, Simple MAPI, and Extended MAPI
If you are using SQL Server 2000, Microsoft strongly encourages you to apply Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Service Pack 2 (SP2), or later, before you try to use SQL Mail."
This is from article #Q315886
July 29, 2002 at 9:04 am
Thanks to all of you for your help. The problem turns out to be: between 7.0 and 2000 the format for using xp_sendMail was changed only by reading about creation of an operator did I find this out. I found this message
If email_address or pager_address is a physical address ('SMTP:jdoe@xyz.com') rather than an alias ('jdoe'), the value must be enclosed in square brackets: '[SMTP:jdoe@xyz.com]'. This was not required in 7.0. By adding the square brackets and using SMPT: everything is now working fine. Again thanks for your help.
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply