locked
Not receiving reject messages Exchange 2007 RRS feed

  • Question


  • Question,

    A couple of users were disabled in AD and their emails were hidden from the Exchange address list and yes we cannot see their names in GAL (Exchange 2007 SP1).
    Alias and email names were changed (Example: changed from iuser@company.com  to xuser@company.com)

    Problem:

    An employee who used to send emails to these disabled users is still able to do this. He does not receive a rejection message. However another employee, who never send messages to these users DOES receive rejection message.

    It seems that it has to do something with GAL updates and Outlook cash. GAL updates are normal (every 480 min) and the Outlook cash was disabled. However the problem persist.  Currently we set the rule inside of mailboxes to reject messages from everybody in the company.  

    Can anybody please explain what is the problem here ?

    Thank you


    Tuesday, June 3, 2014 3:32 PM

Answers

  • Yes.  The first user has the "hidden mailbox" in his Outlook nickname cache, and the messages are delivered using the information saved in that cache.  The second person has no access to that information and gets the NDR you expect.  If you delete that name from the first user's nickname cache (see https://support.microsoft.com/kb/2199226 for details), he will also get the NDR.
    • Marked as answer by bsultanov Tuesday, June 3, 2014 6:19 PM
    Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:21 PM
  • My organization has a churn rate of about 8,000 mailboxes a year.  And, people get testy when they are able to send to someone that is already gone.

    We hide the users from the GAL, remove them from their distribution groups, *and* set their maximum receive message size to 1KB. 

    The max receive message size does generate an NDR because the mailbox won't accept any new mail.  But, that is the only way around completely rejecting the message to the "disabled" mailboxes.   Willard is right, if someone has that person's object in their nickname cache, they don't need to look them up in the GAL any longer.

    But, even if you delete that mailbox from the GAL, the nickname cache object is still there and if the user tries to send to it, they get an NDR anyway.


    Jim McBee - MVP, MCT, MCSE Using Exchange since the v4.0 beta in 1995 - Blog http://mostlyexchange.blogspot.com

    • Marked as answer by bsultanov Tuesday, June 3, 2014 6:20 PM
    Tuesday, June 3, 2014 6:06 PM

All replies

  • Yes.  The first user has the "hidden mailbox" in his Outlook nickname cache, and the messages are delivered using the information saved in that cache.  The second person has no access to that information and gets the NDR you expect.  If you delete that name from the first user's nickname cache (see https://support.microsoft.com/kb/2199226 for details), he will also get the NDR.
    • Marked as answer by bsultanov Tuesday, June 3, 2014 6:19 PM
    Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:21 PM
  • My organization has a churn rate of about 8,000 mailboxes a year.  And, people get testy when they are able to send to someone that is already gone.

    We hide the users from the GAL, remove them from their distribution groups, *and* set their maximum receive message size to 1KB. 

    The max receive message size does generate an NDR because the mailbox won't accept any new mail.  But, that is the only way around completely rejecting the message to the "disabled" mailboxes.   Willard is right, if someone has that person's object in their nickname cache, they don't need to look them up in the GAL any longer.

    But, even if you delete that mailbox from the GAL, the nickname cache object is still there and if the user tries to send to it, they get an NDR anyway.


    Jim McBee - MVP, MCT, MCSE Using Exchange since the v4.0 beta in 1995 - Blog http://mostlyexchange.blogspot.com

    • Marked as answer by bsultanov Tuesday, June 3, 2014 6:20 PM
    Tuesday, June 3, 2014 6:06 PM
  • Thank you Willard !!
    Tuesday, June 3, 2014 6:21 PM
  • Jim, I appreciate you answer as well. Thank you.
    Tuesday, June 3, 2014 6:22 PM