none
Errors After migration 2003 - 2010 When sending to Distro Groups - The recipient's e-mail system isn't accepting messages now. Please try resending this message later or contact the recipient directly.

    Question

  • After recently upgrading a client's Exchange from 2003 to 2010.  After the upgrade there are problems when sending to Distribution Groups ( Potentially single users - other scenarios )

    Has anyone experienced this problem with Exchange 2010?

    Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:

     

    username ( username@email.com )
    The recipient's e-mail system isn't accepting messages now. Please try resending this message later or contact the recipient directly.

     

     

     


     

     

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:15 AM

All replies

  • After recently upgrading a client's Exchange from 2003 to 2010.  After the upgrade there are problems when sending to Distribution Groups ( Potentially single users - other scenarios )

    Has anyone experienced this problem with Exchange 2010?

    Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:

     

    username ( username@email.com )
    The recipient's e-mail system isn't accepting messages now. Please try resending this message later or contact the recipient directly.

    I am seeing a similar problem after a 2003-2010 transition except that the messages that are failing are calendar updates that were created in Exchange 2000, upgraded to 2003 and then transitioned to 2010.  The sender is a delegate on another users calendar.  #550 4.3.2 Transport.Rules; message is deleted by mailbox rules ## 


     

     


    Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:20 PM
  • I have a similar issue in that these appear to be generated for some of the users on the request, but not all, and I am sending these from a Calendar that was imported from 2003 via a PST. 
    Tuesday, January 26, 2010 7:27 PM
  • Hi,

    We experienced the same issue after a migration from E2007 to E2010.
    The issue turned out to be related to delegation settings set on mailboxes.

    When we investigated the mailboxes, we did not find any rules.
    When we used MAPImfc we found that indeed there were rules defined on the mailbox.
    MAPImfc reported the name of the rule to be: "schedule+ EMS"
    When we looked into this rule we found:

    lpActions->ulVersion = 0x00000001 = EDK_RULES_VERSION

    lpActions->cActions = 0x00000002

    lpActions->lpAction[0x00000000]:

    lpAction->acttype = 0x00000008 = OP_DELEGATE

    lpAction->lpRes:

    lpRes was NULL

    ....
    ....

    lpAction->ulActionFlavor = 0x00000000 = (null)

    lpAction->lpPropTagArray = NULL

    lpActions->lpAction[0x00000001]:

    lpAction->acttype = 0x0000000A = OP_DELETE

    lpAction->lpRes:

    lpRes was NULL

    lpAction->ulFlags = 0x00000000 = (null)

    lpAction->ulActionFlavor = 0x00000000 = (null)

    lpAction->lpPropTagArray = NULL



    Which made us believe it had to do with delegation settings.
    When we checked the mailboxes we found mailboxdelegations active on the mailbox.

    In our case a user was set as delegate for another mailbox and had the option:
    "Deliver meeting requests addressed to me and responses to meeting requests where I am the organizer to:"
    Set to:
    "My delegate only"

    This ment that when the delegate send a meeting request on behalf of a mailbox which was also the owner of the meeting, the meeting request send to the owner was deleted by the exchange server.

    When we changed the setting to the recommended setting:
    "My delegate only, but send a copy of meeting requests and responses to me (recommended)"
     
    The problem was solved.

    http://www.andersonpatricio.org/Tutoriais/Exchange2007/ap0942_01.png

    For some reason Exchange 2010 does not silently process the meeting request when this setting is set for a delegate but sends an NDR which triggers users to report an incident when in fact it seems to be behaviour as designed.

    Hope this helps.
     

    • Proposed as answer by davemill99 Thursday, April 28, 2011 9:06 PM
    Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:23 PM