You've described a problem with Automatic replies/forwards to the internet, not the OOA. One can allow the latter, without the former.
On 3/5/03 0:35, "Patrick R. Sweeney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, so here goes my OOO horror story. First off, this is not straight on > point because it involved an older Outlook client, Exchange 5.5, and a quick > hack for a user that I shouldn't have done -- but I didn't know it at the > time. > > 1. We upgraded to Exchange 5.5 and got some complaints because some folks > auto-reply rules weren't working. So I enabled it. > 2. We had a consultant leave, and as was normal and expected at this > particular firm left him with email and allowed him to set up a rule to > auto-forward his email to an outside address, and auto-reply to incoming > messages. > 3. The consultant in question popped back after a few days later and > complained about the format of the forwarded messages, commenting that they > were difficult to respond to since they appeared to be from his account. > Now a custom recipient would have been perfect for this purpose, but not > knowing that, and knowing the Inbox Assistant would forward in the fashion > he wanted, I disabled the Rules Wizard in his inbox, and set up an Inbox > Assistant rule to auto-reply. > 4. We went away for a Holiday weekend, and the holiday in question either > fell during the weekend or on a Tuesday, but we had a four day weekend. > This was actually some time later, but the user received a message from a > subscription service at the beginning of this long weekend informing him of > their support constraints around the holiday, and then continuing to do so > with every message we sent back. > 5. I walked in on day 5, and sat down at my desk to see 80000 (I think that > was the number) overflow messages from the users mailbox which was well past > its limit. I tried to pup up the Exchange Administrator but it just hung > and I ran downstairs to pull the network wire. > 6. I got there just in time to watch the Exchange Server reboot, and then > spend the rest of the day restoring. > > It was the combination of OOO, and reversion to the older Inbox Assistant > that toasted me. The Out of Office Assistant isn't supposed to loop like > that. Regardless, someone advocated an approach where an assistant or > another employee is assigned as an alternate recipient. I think you are > better off to do this for several reasons, including some that benefit the > person on vacation. > 1. Email is a company resource - if a client uses it to contact you they > should get a response. They aren't on vacation, you are. > 2. Email is a company resource - if an employee knows that someone else will > read his email when he is out, it becomes increasingly likely that he will > encourage friends and family to use a personal address for personal > business, jokes, and other nonsense. (And no, it isn't an invasion of > privacy as far as I'm concerned.) > 3. Vacation is time off from work - that is increasingly true if you aren't > returning to stale, unanswered messages. The first word on my voicemail > when I'm on vacation is STOP -- and they usually do. I do use OOO, > typically to provide contact information for my coworkers and boss and > intranet and Internet resources for general troubleshooting, and > reinforcement that if the sender doesn't forward his message to another > resource it will go unanswered until at least the day of my return. (The > use of present tense here is to say this is my normal practice. I don't use > OOO at all at the moment since I don't have a job.) > > > > > -Patrick R. Sweeney > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Byron Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 9:23 PM > Subject: RE: OOO to internet, still bad? > > >> Humm... Seems like we could mitigate that risk with verbiage in the >> acceptable use policy on what is acceptable content to put into an OOO. > No? >> I do recall your standard disclaimer on this "behavioral" approach. :) >> Granted, enforcing that portion of the policy would be a chore. Though >> someone would surely bring that point up. >> >> So far, SPAM sounds like the only real solid ground. >> >> >> :( byron >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:39 PM >> To: Exchange Discussions >> Subject: RE: OOO to internet, still bad? >> >> >> The risk of a mail loop with OOO is small. However, consider the >> following: >> >> Byron Kennedy is out of the office vacationing in the south of France > until >> the end of the summer. Please feel free to drop by his house at 123 Any >> Street, Anytown, USA, and help yourself to whatever is left. If you are a >> spammer, then you've hit a live mailbox! Tell your friends! >> >> Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP >> Freelance E-Mail Philosopher >> Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Byron Kennedy >> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:34 PM >> To: Exchange Discussions >> Subject: OOO to internet, still bad? >> >> >> I know this has caused havoc on e-mail systems in the past. Is this still >> frowned on and if so, are there any "best-practices" available out there > on >> how to enable a firm to provide this service effectively with exchange > 2000, >> outlook 2000/xp and avoid pitfalls in the past? >> >> How do others articulate or provide work-arounds? >> >> Thx for ideas... byron >> >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm >> Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp >> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm >> Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp >> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm >> Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp >> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
