none
Is Recipient Filtering Assesed Prior to Transport Rules? RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi,<o:p></o:p>

    We have NDR's turned off to reduce attempts to reply to SPAM, likewise we have Recipient Filtering enabled only accepting mail for those that exist in AD for the same reason.<o:p></o:p>

    However what I would like to do is reply to those addresses that have recently been deleted. I.E. a staff member leaves and for 6 months we reply saying "mailbox no longer active, please contact xxx"<o:p></o:p>

    If a transport rule could be used to reply to a recipient addresses matching User_email_that_left@domain text
    patterns this would work, however going back to my question, in the order rules are accessed I assume SPAM/Recipient Filtering of AD users would take precedence over a transport rule so it would never be assessed or applied?<o:p></o:p>

    Can anyone confirm this to be the case or the order of processing?<o:p></o:p>

    Any suggestions as to how we might acheive replying to a defined address or list of addresses given the initial settings?<o:p></o:p>

    I could create a mailbox (postmaster) and add the addresses of those deleted as additional addresses and use OOF to reply, however I thought there maybe a better way.<o:p></o:p>

    Thanks in advance

    Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:16 AM

Answers

  • You see, transport rule does have higher priority (3) than recipient filter (7).
    Edge Rule agent 3 OnEndOfData
    Recipient Filter agent 7 OnRcptCommand
     
    However, transport rule agent is executated in OnEndOfData event, after OnRcptCommand event, so in the end, the recipient filering has still been run before transport rule.

    You can take a look the example in the "Prioritization of Transport Agents" section of the first link.

    • Marked as answer by Jetonline Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:20 AM
    Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:09 AM

All replies

  • Hi Jetonline,

    As I see, transport rule is running before recipient filtering on Edge. You have Edge role installed, right?
    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb125012(v=exchg.141).aspx

    Thanks.

    =========== (Update)
    Sorry, my mistake, forgot that priority will be impacted by sequence of SMTP events.

    I don't see a way to move transport rule in front of recipient filtering.
    You can see the order processing more clearly in the table in the link below.
    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb691082(v=exchg.141).aspx


    • Edited by James.Luo Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:40 AM
    Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:19 AM
  • Hi James-Ex,

    In the first link it would seem the order is workable. However sorry for the ignorace but did not quite follow the second update link, but will accept it, as I cant actually make it work in practice so something is inhibiting it.

    Thanks for you input! Maybe I will try plan b.

    Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:07 AM
  • You see, transport rule does have higher priority (3) than recipient filter (7).
    Edge Rule agent 3 OnEndOfData
    Recipient Filter agent 7 OnRcptCommand
     
    However, transport rule agent is executated in OnEndOfData event, after OnRcptCommand event, so in the end, the recipient filering has still been run before transport rule.

    You can take a look the example in the "Prioritization of Transport Agents" section of the first link.

    • Marked as answer by Jetonline Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:20 AM
    Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:09 AM
  • I think, James is right.

    OM (MCITP) | Blog

    Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:27 PM
  • On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:16:56 +0000, Jetonline wrote:
     
    >
    >
    >Hi,<o:p></o:p>
    >
    >We have NDR's turned off to reduce attempts to reply to SPAM, likewise we have Recipient Filtering enabled only accepting mail for those that exist in AD for the same reason.<o:p></o:p>
    >
    >However what I would like to do is reply to those addresses that have recently been deleted. I.E. a staff member leaves and for 6 months we reply saying "mailbox no longer active, please contact xxx"<o:p></o:p>
    >
    >If a transport rule could be used to reply to a recipient addresses matching User_email_that_left@domain text patterns this would work, however going back to my question, in the order rules are accessed I assume SPAM/Recipient Filtering of AD users would take precedence over a transport rule so it would never be assessed or applied?<o:p></o:p>
    >
    >Can anyone confirm this to be the case or the order of processing?<o:p></o:p>
     
    Recipient filtering happens before transport rules are evaluated.
     
    >Any suggestions as to how we might acheive replying to a defined address or list of addresses given the initial settings?<o:p></o:p>
     
    Keep the mailboxes in the organization (hide them from the GAL, set a
    small mailbox send/receive quota on them, etc.). Use a transport rule
    to send a rejection status to the sender with a customized status code
    and text.
     
    >I could create a mailbox (postmaster)
     
    I wouldn't use the postmaster's mailbox for this. Create another one.
     
    >and add the addresses of those deleted as additional addresses and use OOF to reply, however I thought there maybe a better way.<o:p></o:p>
     
    Use the mailbox with the additional addresses as the "Person" in the
    transport rule.
     
    Doing this may generate a lot of junk e-mail the person you nominate
    as the alternate contact for the departed employee.
     
    ---
    Rich Matheisen
    MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
     

    --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
    Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:08 AM
  • Thanks, James, Rich, I beleive James answered my question and I will look at my alternative.

    Yes postmaster was a poor choice of name for the new mailbox suggestion.

    Despite the fact I have deleted the user account and mailbox, by adding the address as an additional address to another "generic" mail account, this should then pass "Recipient Filtering" and I can create the Transport Rule to reject with a custom Message? This way I should not have the mail buildup issue, but have added a slight overhead.

    Thanks for suggestions

    Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:33 AM
  • Yes. It should pass 'Recipient Filtering'.

    How about putting additional address into the mailbox of successor of the left employee? The new staff will do the same job as the left person, right?

    Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:48 AM
  • Thanks James,

    Yes can confirm in testing it does pass 'Recipient Filtering' but infact the only option I had to 'Reply' with Transport Rules was to 'Reject Mess...' so in-fact it is actually just an NDR and requires enabling NDR's to actually send. :(

    So I am thinking a generic mailbox with additional addresses is the go for us. As it is a pooled workforce, no one in particular would take anothers role. This way too it is probably easier to manage maintaining the notification for 6 months then removing addresses, they are all in the one place.

    Appreciate the ideas.

    Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:00 AM
  • On Wed, 22 May 2013 02:48:10 +0000, James-Ex wrote:
     
    >Yes. It should pass 'Recipient Filtering'.
    >
    >
    >
    >How about putting additional address into the mailbox of successor of the left employee? The new staff will do the same job as the left person, right?
     
    Doing that can sometimes cause a bit of confusion if you use Lync or
    OCS if the sip address is the same as the e-mail address. People
    sometimes show up in IM conversations as if they were the other
    person. :-)
     
    ---
    Rich Matheisen
    MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
     

    --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
    Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:40 AM