Technically, that's a problem with Rules, as opposed to Out of Office, even if the rules are under the Out of Office Wizard. The risks with allowing rules, i.e. automatic replies or forwards to the Internet, as you have described are numerous and dangerous.
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 Patrick R. Sweeney Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 10:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: OOO to internet, still bad? 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]
