[GH-ISSUE #135] Version number conflicts #105

Closed
opened 2026-02-26 10:35:56 +03:00 by kerem · 5 comments
Owner

Originally created by @semack on GitHub (Jan 17, 2016).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/Pro/dkim-exchange/issues/135

I found this document and compared dkim install script with it.

For example, notes from install script:
Exchange 2013 SP1 CU4 (15.0.847.32)
Exchange 2013 SP1 CU5 (15.0.913.22)

Information from Microsoft web site:
Exchange Server 2013 CU4 May 27, 2014 15.00.0913.022
Exchange Server 2013 CU5 August 26, 2014 15.00.0995.029

As you see, there is different information about versions.

Originally created by @semack on GitHub (Jan 17, 2016). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/Pro/dkim-exchange/issues/135 I found [this document](https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh135098%28v=exchg.150%29.aspx) and compared dkim install script with it. For example, notes from install script: Exchange 2013 SP1 CU4 (15.0.847.32) Exchange 2013 SP1 CU5 (15.0.913.22) Information from Microsoft web site: Exchange Server 2013 CU4 May 27, 2014 15.00.0913.022 Exchange Server 2013 CU5 August 26, 2014 15.00.0995.029 As you see, there is different information about versions.
kerem 2026-02-26 10:35:56 +03:00
Author
Owner

@Pro commented on GitHub (Jan 17, 2016):

Yes you are right. It looks like we are using a different naming, i.e.,
(left the official, right side our version)
Exchange Server 2013 SP1 -> Exchange 2013 SP1 CU4
Exchange 2013 CU4 -> Exchange 2013 SP1 CU5
Exchange 2013 CU5 -> Exchange 2013 SP1 CU6

Somehow, the official document skips CU6?

<!-- gh-comment-id:172317700 --> @Pro commented on GitHub (Jan 17, 2016): Yes you are right. It looks like we are using a different naming, i.e., (left the official, right side our version) Exchange Server 2013 SP1 -> Exchange 2013 SP1 CU4 Exchange 2013 CU4 -> Exchange 2013 SP1 CU5 Exchange 2013 CU5 -> Exchange 2013 SP1 CU6 Somehow, the official document skips CU6?
Author
Owner
<!-- gh-comment-id:172317721 --> @semack commented on GitHub (Jan 17, 2016): I found this one http://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/15776.exchange-server-2013-and-2016-build-numbers-with-cumulative-updates.aspx
Author
Owner

@Pro commented on GitHub (Jan 17, 2016):

This looks more like our scheme. So it should be fine?

<!-- gh-comment-id:172317772 --> @Pro commented on GitHub (Jan 17, 2016): This looks more like our scheme. So it should be fine?
Author
Owner

@semack commented on GitHub (Jan 17, 2016):

I don't know :)

<!-- gh-comment-id:172317818 --> @semack commented on GitHub (Jan 17, 2016): I don't know :)
Author
Owner

@Pro commented on GitHub (Jan 17, 2016):

Jep, looks good to me

<!-- gh-comment-id:172317848 --> @Pro commented on GitHub (Jan 17, 2016): Jep, looks good to me
Sign in to join this conversation.
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
starred/dkim-exchange-Pro#105
No description provided.