[ExchangeList] Re: Puzzling Mystery: Ex2k3 allows adding a mailbox with same name as an existing SMTP alias!

  • From: "Lee Ann Swanson" <swanson@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:08:21 -0600

Was kind of curious as I had this happen awhile back, except the new email
box created appended a 2 onto the end. i.e. sales2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I just
set it up again and the 2 was appended to the new mail box when I checked
the email addresses... So not sure why you had your problem. Both did not
get the email.


Just some thoughts.


Thank you.



From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jabber Wock
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:43 PM
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [ExchangeList] Puzzling Mystery: Ex2k3 allows adding a mailbox with
same name as an existing SMTP alias!




Here is a strange situation I ran into on an Exchange 2003 server and I was
wondering if anyone can shed light on it.


An existing user has email address Joe.Blo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  And he is also
configured with an existing SMTP "alias" of sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  So far so
good, all is working great, for weeks and months.


Now a request comes to make a mailbox for sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  The admin
does not realize that there is already a user with this same alias, and goes
ahead and creates the new mailbox.


Amazingly, and here is the perplexing part:  Exchange 2003 and AD do not
complain, but go ahead and allow this mailbox to be created!  So now there
is a mailbox named salesd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx and also secretly and
unintentionally, an existing user with an alias sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ! And
of course, any emails for sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx go to both.


How and why does Exchange allow this?


Interestingly, Exchange does not allow the opposite sitation.  If I were to
try and add sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx as an email SMTP alias to some other
existing user Mary.Jane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Exchange / AD refuses to do it as it
correctly should.


You may want to try this just as an experiment.


So why is it allowed the other way?  Is this an Exchange bug or a "feature"


Best regards



Other related posts: