Daniel, have a look at the rules in the wizard, there is an exception called "Except if it as an automatic reply", so it appears outlook does have a way of identifying auto replies. Maybe something in the header? Also, I'm not sure why having a simple exception that will not reply to something that has the word RE: in the subject because most auto replies would come back with RE: in the subject. So yes that means only the first email a user sends would receive the auto reply, but it's an inelegant solution to begin with. The VIPs requesting the feature would just have to live with it.
This is, if course, outside if getting a ticket system which we all know is the best idea. On Nov 10, 2014 7:05 PM, "Daniel Wolf" <da.w...@neopost.com> wrote: > There is no standard way to identify automated replies. > > To stop mail loops with outside mail servers, you need quite a word list. > Even then, you'll still get in mail loops with weird autoresponder services > and you'll still need a user trained on how to break the cycle. > > Some of the words you'll need to cancel a reply for: > > Autoreply > Auto reply > Auto-reply > Autorespond > Auto respond > Auto-respond > Automated response > Do not reply > Do not respond > Not monitored > Noreply > Out of office > > Etc. > > Daniel Wolf > > -----Original Message----- > From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto: > listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Buff > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 5:18 PM > To: exchange@lists.myitforum.com > Subject: Re: [Exchange] Autoresponder for Customer Service > > Yes, the second option is smarter. > > Kurt > > On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 5:34 PM, ccollins9 <ccolli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There are two ways around a mail loop. Each way is an exception you > > choose in the rules wizard when building the rule in Outlook. I would > > prefer the second option, for obvious reasons: > > > > 1. "Except if the subject or body contain specific words", then add > > RE: and > > FW: to the words list > > > > 2. "Except if it as an automatic reply" > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 9, 2014 2:57 AM, "Steven Peck" <sep...@live.com> wrote: > >> > >> Will this do mail loops if an auto-reply to a rule triggers this? It > >> seems it would but I figured I would ask. > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Kurt Buff > >> Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 5:13 PM > >> To: exchange@lists.myitforum.com > >> > >> Excellent - this works. > >> > >> Learn something new every day... > >> > >> Kurt > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 1:52 PM, ccollins9 <ccolli...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Actually, there is a way to create the rule in Outlook AND not have > >> > to leave Outlook running. In Outlook, create a new rule and choose > >> > "have server reply using a specific message". Then you can close > >> > Outlook and be fine. I just tested this. So I would append my > >> > earlier suggestion and not use Out of Office but say to open > >> > Outlook as the customer service account, create the rule, then > >> > close it. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Kennedy, Jim > >> > <kennedy...@elyriaschools.org> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> That type of a rule is client side only.. You could do it a > >> >> Transport Rule with a bounce message. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com > >> >> [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of J- P > >> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 3:18 PM > >> >> To: exchange@lists.myitforum.com > >> >> Subject: RE: [Exchange] Autoresponder for Customer Service > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> But can't you just create a server side rule instead of an OoO ? > >> >> > >> >> Rule > >> >> For all messages , reply with "bla bla bla" > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 11:02:17 -0800 > >> >> > Subject: Re: [Exchange] Autoresponder for Customer Service > >> >> > From: kurt.b...@gmail.com > >> >> > To: exchange@lists.myitforum.com > >> >> > > >> >> > Oh, wait... > >> >> > > >> >> > OoO only responds once per customer during the period while it's > >> >> > configured. We'd have to turn if off and on again on a regular > >> >> > basis (daily, weekly), and that's not going to work... > >> >> > > >> >> > Kurt > >> >> > > >> >> > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:38 AM, ccollins9 <ccolli...@gmail.com> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > The best thing you could do, if able, would be to get a > >> >> > > ticketing system that "checks" the inbox of a designated > >> >> > > account and generate tickets based on email sitting in there, > >> >> > > then it will auto-reply to those messages explaining a ticket > >> >> > > was created and generate an ID for the user. > >> >> > > Footprints > >> >> > > and Track-It are products i've used to do this. Maybe since > >> >> > > the "important" > >> >> > > folks want you all do make these improvements they would be > >> >> > > willing to pony up some dough so you all can take the customer > >> >> > > service to the next level. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > But short of that, > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Here's what I would do: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > 1. Delete the Distribution List--so you can reuse the SMTP > >> >> > > address that it has > >> >> > > > >> >> > > 2. Create a new user mailbox using the same SMTP address of > >> >> > > the deleted DL > >> >> > > > >> >> > > 3. There is no need to "have it logged in somewhere forever". > >> >> > > You can simply go into https://OWAAddress/ECP, manage another > >> >> > > user, then setup an out of office auto-reply with no ending > >> >> > > date. This is done from the server side and "outside" of > >> >> > > Outlook, so there is no need to have Outlook running, ever. > >> >> > > The only down side to this would be that the user would only > >> >> > > get the out of office reply once. Exchange knows when a sender > >> >> > > has already received and out of office message from a > >> >> > > recipient--this is to prevent the bounce loop. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > 4. Then I would decide exactly how I want email flow to work. > >> >> > > For example, If I want any messages sent to this new address > >> >> > > to also get sent to all my technicians I would do this: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Create a new DL containing all the technicians. Go into the > >> >> > > EMC and bring up the account properties of the new mailbox > >> >> > > created in step 2, under "Delivery Options" enable forwarding, > >> >> > > then check the option to "deliver message to both forwarding > >> >> > > address and mailbox". Checking this will ensure that the > >> >> > > message is both forwarded to your technician's DL address AND > >> >> > > the out of office reply is generated and sent. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Kurt Buff > >> >> > > <kurt.b...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> All, > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> We currently have a DL for customer service/technical > >> >> > >> support, and some (important) folks would like to set up an > >> >> > >> autoresponder for the address. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> We are running Exchange 2010, and transitioning from Outlook > >> >> > >> 2010 to 2013. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> I've pointed out that you can't put up an autoresponder on a > >> >> > >> DL, and that there are basically three options (AFAICT - > >> >> > >> please correct me if I'm wrong!): > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> o- Move the SMTP address to a mailbox with a rule and have it > >> >> > >> logged in somewhere forever > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> o- Move the SMTP address to a PF and set an autoresponder on > >> >> > >> it > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> o- Use a third-party product. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> I've pointed out the risk of a bounce war, and they don't > >> >> > >> seem to care... > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> Also, AFAICS, a transport rule will only generate a bounce > >> >> > >> message that looks weird and has only limited characters. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> Can you folks recommend a (fairly cheap) third party > >> >> > >> autoresponder for this kind of thing? > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> Thanks, > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> Kurt > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
