Re: Exchange (2003SP1?) NDR mail loop BUG

After drinking 3 Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters, "Ben Winzenz [Exchange
MVP]" <ben_winzenz@NOSPAMdotmessageonedotcom> mumbled in
news:#POlgog5FHA.2864@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> Regarding Microsoft support - that's how it works. You have to
> pay to open a case regardless of the issue. I don't know if
> they would later refund the call if it is truly a BUG.

Well I have until recently received a more open dialog when I
called Microsoft about problems.

But I think you are doing a great job on UseNet supporting your
customers - I just have to get used to that! :-)

> However, I have my doubts that it is a bug. I think that Exchange
> is functioning exactly as you tell it to.
> 1. When you disable a user account, any mail sent TO that user
> account WILL immediately NDR. This is normal behavior.

Agree.

> 2. If you are forwarding EVERY message to that user, it's not
> really a looping message. Rather, when you forward a message, a
> NEW message is being generated. It's clear that this is a
> situation that is generating a lot of log files, and you'd
> obviously like to see Exchange handle this differently.

Agree.

> I'm not sure how you expect Exchange to handle an NDR
> differently? The only thing that is different is that the Sender
> will be <> or Postmaster. Since you have a rule that is
> forwarding ALL messages, how is Exchange supposed to handle that
> differently?

Well I have no way of NOT forwarding e-mails from <> or postmaster
(or any other NDR-creator). Exchange knows (at least when it is
happening internally - when will SMTP ever be replaced by
something more robust on the internet?) that it is handling a NDR.

This loop is so easy to create - and I do not know of any other
easy way - apart from pulling the hardware - to get Exchange to
fall on it's knees (in a gracefull way).

Some kind of throttling mechanism could at least lengthen the
responstime before the server is brought down because of lack
of diskspace.

> One thing you might take a look at doing is allowing disabled
> accounts to receive e-mail. There is a utility called NoMAS
> (can't remember if it's on the PSS FTP site or not - if not,
> I'm pretty sure that I can send it to you) that will check
> accounts and if they are disabled, one of the things it can
> do is set the MasterAccountSID attribute so that the disabled
> account can receive mail.

Well I don't want disabled account to receive e-mails! They are
users which are no longer! Except they may reappear for some
reason or another, so I cannot delete them!

I know I am not cooperative! :-)

> I'd also suggest that if you are insistent on forwarding
> messages from Public Folder using rules such as you have, that
> you make it part of your routine of disabling accounts to also
> check if they are part of any forwarding rules.

We do have quite a few Public Folders (which Microsoft by the
way are planning to stop supporting) so it requires quite some
digging to go them all to find whatever rules are applied!

But that is what I have learned to do now - the hard way! :-)

> Also, you might consider a different method of forwarding messages.
> Instead of using a rule, go to the Public Folder Properties (in
> Exchange System Manager), then the Exchange General Tab, Delivery
> Options button. You can set it up here to specify a forwarding
> address. I believe that you'll find that this should behave
> differently. If the same message ID is looping, Exchange DOES have
> logic built-in to stop it from looping.

Using rules allow my users to maintain the processing of mails
without wasting :-) my time.

I am already using the Delivery Options for other purposes, so I
know the function.

Andrew
--
*** The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. ***
* Software Engineer Andrew Engels Rump * BLIK og ROERarbejderforbundet *
* Immerkaer 42, 2650 Hvidovre * Tlf: +45 3638 3638, Fax: +45 3638 3639 *
Home: N55°41'38.9" E12°29'08.6" (WGS 84) Work: N55°39'50.9" E12°27'47.4"
E-mail: mailto:newandrew@xxxxxxx WWW http://www.rump.dk/homepage/andrew/
.