From: Peter Venkman on 29 Jun 2010 16:13 Thanks all. As for the legitimate reason for allowing rules on mailboxes, I'd agree. Resource mailboxes should certainly allow rules to be run while disabled. User mailboxes... I don't agree with. Since Exchange 2007 differentiates between the two, I see it as a flaw. Thanks for the rest of suggestions. We have Forefront, so we can filter outgoing mail through a blocked sender list. It just adds an extra step to the term process. Unfortunately, we have to keep them disabled but not deleted per company policy for 30 days and some have server-side forwarding in place to managers/replacements. PVD
From: Peter Venkman on 29 Jun 2010 16:14 Thanks all. As for the legitimate reason for allowing rules on mailboxes, I'd agree. Resource mailboxes should certainly allow rules to be run while disabled. User mailboxes... I don't agree with. Since Exchange 2007 differentiates between the two, I see it as a flaw. Thanks for the rest of suggestions. We have Forefront, so we can filter outgoing mail through a blocked sender list. It just adds an extra step to the term process. Unfortunately, we have to keep them disabled but not deleted per company policy for 30 days and some have server-side forwarding in place to managers/replacements. PVD
From: Peter Venkman on 29 Jun 2010 16:49 Thanks all. As for the legitimate reason for allowing rules on mailboxes, I'd agree. Resource mailboxes should certainly allow rules to be run while disabled. User mailboxes... I don't agree with. Since Exchange 2007 differentiates between the two, I see it as a flaw. Thanks for the rest of suggestions. We have Forefront, so we can filter outgoing mail through a blocked sender list. It just adds an extra step to the term process. Unfortunately, we have to keep them disabled but not deleted per company policy for 30 days and some have server-side forwarding in place to managers/replacements. PVD
|
Pages: 1 Prev: need your help. Next: can an administrator of exchange view or store emails? |