Re: remove e-mail addresses from public folders

[Rich Matheisen [MVP]]

"Alexandr...@hotmail.com"
<AlexandrDioge...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Want to remove e-mail addresses from thousands of public folders, but can't
>see where 2k3 will allow me to remove even one (last one).

Delete the folder's object in the AD's Micorosoft Exchange System
Objects container.

>Need to preserve
>mail storage. Can't see where policy will let me apply anything based on
>public folder tree structure either, e.g. one top level public folder and all
>subfolders, remove e-mail addresses.

Right-click the parent folder and select "Mail disable" in the "All
Tasks" menu. Then right-click the parent folder again and select
"Propagate Settings..." in the "All Tasks..." menu. Check the "Mail
enabled" box.

>Tired of spammers sending to my public folders, which since I don't allow
>annonymous writes, bounce messages, creating 2x the wasted mail flow- or even
>worse since the spam can't be returned to sender either (fake "from"
>address). No smtp, no spam.

But if you don't reject messages that don't exist in your directory
(i.e. you don't use "recipient filtering") you'll still generate a
NDR.

--
Rich Matheisen
MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
MS Exchange FAQ at http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm

[AlexandrDioge...@discussions.microsoft.com]

Pulled away, but now back.
What does this mean?

1. "Delete the folder's object in the AD's Micorosoft Exchange System
Objects container."

2. Right clicking the public folder, one that has an SMTP address, yields
the option, "Mail ENable" not the option "mail DIS able" as recommended. Yes,
to repeat, it still has an smtp address... that I can't remove.

3. "But if you don't reject messages that don't exist in your directory

(i.e. you don't use "recipient filtering") you'll still generate a

NDR." My fault for not establishing context- this is not a concernt b/c my
spam filter is ldap-integrated and if e-mail addy doesn't exist, it drops the
connection and the spam won't come in.

[Rich Matheisen [MVP]]

"Alexandr...@hotmail.com"
<AlexandrDioge...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Pulled away, but now back.
>What does this mean?
>
>1. "Delete the folder's object in the AD's Micorosoft Exchange System
>Objects container."

It means just what it says. Each mail-enabled public folder has a
representation in the Active directory. If you remove the object from
the AD the folder will no longer receive mail.

>2. Right clicking the public folder, one that has an SMTP address, yields
>the option, "Mail ENable" not the option "mail DIS able" as recommended. Yes,
>to repeat, it still has an smtp address... that I can't remove.

This wouldn't be the 1st time that public folders and their AD objects
have become unsynchronized. If the folder thinks that it's NOT
mai-enabled, but the folder still receives mail, then delete the AD
object (see above).

[AlexandrDioge...@discussions.microsoft.com]

#1 would appear to delete the public folder itself, which is why I can't
believe that we are either looking at the same folders in AD, or that any
warning messages are correct/consistent, or that I've communicated/received
communication clearly.

I have found that our current mixed mode status might be reason enough that
the mail enable/disable etc doesn't pop up as availably. (in addition to the
possible synch issues).

In my stuff so far, I have forgotten to thank you for your responses.
Thank you - they are appreciated.

[Rich Matheisen [MVP]]

"Alexandr...@hotmail.com"
<AlexandrDioge...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>#1 would appear to delete the public folder itself, which is why I can't
>believe that we are either looking at the same folders in AD, or that any
>warning messages are correct/consistent, or that I've communicated/received
>communication clearly.

Removing the directory object for a public folder will not remove the
folder from the public folder store.

>I have found that our current mixed mode status

You never mentioned mixed-mode! Your referred only to e2k3.

You cannot "mail disable" a public folder in mixed mode because
Exchange 5.5 insists that all public folders must be mail-enabled.

The ADC may recreate a missing AD object. I forget if removing the AD
object removes the folder in Exchange 5.5

>might be reason enough that
>the mail enable/disable etc doesn't pop up as availably. (in addition to the
>possible synch issues).

In mixed-mode your options are limited to removing the permission for
default or anonymous users to create items in the folder. Or you can
give the folders SMTP addresses that are difficult to guess.

[AlexandrDioge...@discussions.microsoft.com]

Sorry about the mixed mode thing. An unfair ambush. Thanks for your help and
commentary. Every little bit helps. I am holding out hope that things get
better when we get out of mixed mode, but right now I am very disappointed
w/e2k3. Even the simplest admin tasks seem to be vastly over complicated and
extremely touchy, and sensitivities break a lot more than previously, yet no
real security gain and our productivity has tanked b/c of e2k3. Still, it
isn't fair to judge the play until the play is done. So I'll hold my best
discipline to see how it goes as soon as we can get out of mixed mode.

[Rich Matheisen [MVP]]

"Alexandr...@hotmail.com"
<AlexandrDioge...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Sorry about the mixed mode thing. An unfair ambush. Thanks for your help and
>commentary. Every little bit helps. I am holding out hope that things get
>better when we get out of mixed mode, but right now I am very disappointed
>w/e2k3. Even the simplest admin tasks seem to be vastly over complicated and
>extremely touchy,

I used to think so too, but that was almost five years ago. I wouldn't
go back now if you paid me to.

>and sensitivities break a lot more than previously, yet no
>real security gain and our productivity has tanked b/c of e2k3.

Unfamiliarity can do that. The same things were said of other
products, too. Would you return to MS Mail. c:Mail, or Exchange 4.0? I
can't imaging running 5000 users on an Exchange 5.5 server, let alone
20,000 users in a site. The MTA's would have needed constant
attention.

>Still, it
>isn't fair to judge the play until the play is done. So I'll hold my best
>discipline to see how it goes as soon as we can get out of mixed mode.

Move it along as quickly as you can. We ran in mixed mode for a little
over 2 years because of other on-going consolidation work (we've gone
from 125 servers in 48 sites down to 25 servers in 9 admin groups, and
we'll drop another three later this year; that's not something I would
have even considered with Exchange 5.5).