Re: Multiple recipient policies

From: Alan Sun [MSFT] (v-asun_at_online.microsoft.com)
Date: 07/09/04 

Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 04:53:55 GMT

Hi Tim,

Your understanding is correct. You should create a new Recipient Policy
with higher priority.

If anything is unclear, feel free to let me know.

Have a nice day!

Thanks & Regards
Alan Sun
Microsoft Online Partner Support

Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
=====================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
=====================================================

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

--------------------
     |From: "Tim Kowal" <tim@nospam.com>
     |Newsgroups: microsoft.public.exchange.admin
     |References: <dp%Gc.12491$4A5.9238@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>
<74dXEhJZEHA.3748@cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl>
     |Subject: Re: Multiple recipient policies
     |Lines: 118
     |X-Priority: 3
     |X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
     |X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
     |X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
     |Message-ID: <mJdHc.7916$Ug6.4212@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>
     |NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.127.249.122
     |X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
     |X-Trace: newssvr25.news.prodigy.com 1089300434 ST000 67.127.249.122
(Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:27:14 EDT)
     |NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:27:14 EDT
     |Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
     |X-UserInfo1:
Q[R_PJSCO@SARPDXAZNFOPTDFZ\@@FXLM@TDOCQDJ@_@FN\CDVW[AKK[J\]^HVKHG^EWZHBLO^[\
NH_AZFWGN^\DHNVMX_DHHX[FSQKBOTS@@BP^]C@RHS_AGDDC[AJM_T[GZNRNZAY]GNCPBDYKOLK^
_CZFWPGHZIXW@C[AFKBBQS@E@DAZ]VDFUNTQQ]FN
     |Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 15:27:14 GMT
     |Path:
cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-onlin
e.de!news.glorb.com!prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!post
master.news.prodigy.com!newssvr25.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!7f2df3f6!not-for-m
ail
     |Xref: cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl microsoft.public.exchange.admin:433711
     |X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.exchange.admin
     |
     |Ah, I get it. Must I assign it a higher priority than the default
policy in
     |order for it to override for those filtered recips? I think that all
makes
     |sense then. Thanks!
     |
     |
     |"Alan Sun [MSFT]" <v-asun@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
     |news:74dXEhJZEHA.3748@cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl...
     |> Hello Tim,
     |>
     |> Thank you for posting here.
     |>
     |> Based on my knowledge, I suggest you create a new Recipient Policy
to
     |> change the default address for the proper accounts. To do so, refer
to the
     |> following steps:
     |>
     |> 1. Start the Exchange System Manager
     |>
     |> 2. Expand the Recipients folder, and then click Recipient Policies
in the
     |> left pane.
     |>
     |> 3. Right-click Recipient Policies, and then click New Recipient
Policy on
     |> the shortcut menu.
     |>
     |> 4. In the Name box, type a name for the recipient policy.
     |>
     |> 5. Click Modify. The Find Exchange Recipients dialog box appears.
In the
     |> Find Exchange Recipients dialog box, you can create a filter for
users to
     |> which the recipient policy will apply.
     |>
     |> 5. Click the "E-Mail Addresses" tab, and then add any additional
Simple
     |> Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) addresses (domain2.net) that you want
the
     |> Exchange-based computer to host. You can set the new domain to
primary.
     |>
     |> For more information, refer to the following articles:
     |> 268838 Configuring Exchange to Receive Mail from Multiple Domains
     |> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=268838
     |>
     |> 317298 XADM: How to Create E-Mail Addresses Based on Recipient
Policies
     |> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=317298
     |>
     |> Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any other concerns,
or
     |need
     |> anything else.
     |>
     |> Have a nice day!
     |>
     |> Thanks & Regards
     |> Alan Sun
     |> Microsoft Online Partner Support
     |>
     |> Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
     |> =====================================================
     |> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your
newsreader so
     |> that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
     |> =====================================================
     |>
     |> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
     |rights.
     |>
     |>
     |>
     |> --------------------
     |> |From: "Tim Kowal" <tim@nospam.com>
     |> |Newsgroups: microsoft.public.exchange.admin
     |> |Subject: Multiple recipient policies
     |> |Lines: 12
     |> |X-Priority: 3
     |> |X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
     |> |X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
     |> |X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
     |> |Message-ID: <dp%Gc.12491$4A5.9238@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>
     |> |NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.127.249.122
     |> |X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
     |> |X-Trace: newssvr27.news.prodigy.com 1089241801 ST000
67.127.249.122
     |> (Wed, 07 Jul 2004 19:10:01 EDT)
     |> |NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 19:10:01 EDT
     |> |Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
     |> |X-UserInfo1:
     |>
     
|SCSYQNONAJTIRSTXYJK\OFXBWR\HPCTL@XT^OBPLAH[\RYIBK^RAQFW[ML\THRCKV^GGZKJMGV^
^
     |>
     
|_JSCFFUA_QXFGVSCYRPILH]TRVKC^LSN@DX_HCAFX__@J\DAJBVMY\ZWZCZLPA^MVH_P@\\EOMW
\
     |> YSXHG__IJQY_@M[A[[AXQ_XDSTAR]\PG]NVAQUVM
     |> |Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 23:10:01 GMT
     |> |Path:
     |>
     
|cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXS01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA05.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP
0
     |>
     
|8.phx.gbl!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.glorb.com!prodigy.com
!
     |>
     
|newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr
2
     |> 7.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!7f2df3f6!not-for-mail
     |> |Xref: cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl
microsoft.public.exchange.admin:433604
     |> |X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.exchange.admin
     |> |
     |> |My Exchange 2003 hosts two email domains, domain1.org and
     |domain2.net.
     |> |Domain1.org has about 20 users and domain2.net has about 5. My
     |> Recpient
     |> |Default Policy has both domains listed there, but domain1.org
is the
     |> |default. I just manually set the 5 domain2.net users to their
proper
     |> default
     |> |addresses.
     |> |
     |> |However, I found a couple weeks later that their emails
addresses
     |had
     |> all
     |> |reverted. I imagine that the policy re-propagated itself and
     |> overwrote my
     |> |manual adjustments. I have a feeling i am not doing this the
proper
     |> way.
     |> |What should I do in this two-domain scenario?
     |> |
     |> |
     |> |
     |>
     |
     |
     |

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Email address policy - broken
    ... Does the filter on the new policy look like: ... Does the policy you want to apply have a higher priority? ... MVP - Exchange ... 95% of them) and changed them to the wrong address format. ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
  • Re: Lock Policy doesnt refresh
    ... Now I've create a new Policy (with higher priority) at domain level, ... but even in this case if I insert wrong password n times, the account ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.group_policy)
  • Re: Recipient policies
    ... Only one policy will affect any given object. ... If there is a higher priority ... policy with a query that touches them then this policy will never affect ... put users in this group edited custom attribute 10. ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
  • Re: Default recipient policy not appearing..
    ... Only one recipient policy can apply to a user account. ... is set to a higher priority and includes those users, ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... It is extremely important that in war time, the government must know who it can trust - so each citizen will have a dossier built on them and ID cards will only be given to those who pass the righteousness test. ... Except that there are NO reasonable restrictions on inalienable rights. ... suitable for personal protection in places where I could conceivably ... If the answer to this is yes, then the policy is wrong. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)