We are running 2007 and use security groups for all access to shared mailboxes.
And yes, I know it's out of support, the migration to 2013 starts next month. I don't know which will be worse yet. T On 8 Aug 2014 23:25, "Michael B. Smith" <[email protected]> wrote: > Controlling access to a mailbox via a security group was a new feature > in Exchange 2010. I believe it was introduced in SP1, but without reviewing > old notes, I can’t be certain. > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Daniel Wolf > *Sent:* Friday, August 8, 2014 2:01 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [Exchange] RE: Full Access mailbox stays in Outlook, can't be > removed. > > > > Automap is Microsoft avoiding actually implementing proper ways for us to > administer adding mailboxes to Outlook. Automap doesn’t work if you control > access via a security group. Who the hell controls access to a mailbox > per-user? > > (If there actually is a way and I’m an idiot, do tell) > > > > Daniel Wolf > > > > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Maglinger, Paul > *Sent:* Friday, August 8, 2014 11:03 AM > *To:* New Exchange List ([email protected]) > *Subject:* [Exchange] Full Access mailbox stays in Outlook, can't be > removed. > > > > I had a case today where a user was granted full access to a mailbox. > Automapping kicked in and the mailbox appeared in the user’s Outlook > client. The user no longer needed access so I removed the full access. > The mailbox didn’t go away and I was unable to remove it from Outlook. > This caused me to search for a solution and I did find several such as > using ADSIedit and others using the EMS. I used the EMS and put in: > > > > # Add-MailboxPermission -Identity JeroenC -User 'Mark Steele' -AccessRight > FullAccess -InheritanceType All -Automapping $false > > > > And it worked. > > > > My question is that these solutions are almost 3 years old. Why is this > still a problem? Seems that if automapping puts it there it should also be > able to remove it. > > > > -Paul >
