I have installed the autoaccept agent in our exchange2003/Windows 2003 server.One Resource Mailbox is registered to autoaccept and it is working. But the additional requirement is,1. The Oraganizer who sets up the meeting shouldnt receive any reply back on the acceptance of the meeting. Right now this is being send back to the organizer and I would like to block it.2. Even if there is a conflict the Resource mailbox should accept the calender item automatically.I am running autoaccept agemt as a system account. I tried editing the security properties of the Resource mailbox (by removing the send-as permission for the system account and self account). But it didnt help.Is there any way I can accomplish these results?Jithesh

The organizer can choose to forward the replies to deleted items with a rule, or you could just let people use direct booking, but the whole point of autoaccept is to send back a confirmation.you should be able to force the free/busy status to make all the items "free" on accept so that all future items can be booked.These things are all easier with Exchange 2007 or 2010.

Thanks for your reply Andy.I totally understand that the whole point of autoaccept is to send back a confirmation. But the requirement from the Sales team is such that the customers shouldnt get the response back. I was able to get this done, by changing the Send Limitation to 1KB for the resource mailbox.Now the only issue that I amk facing is that the resource mailbox doesnt accept conflicting invites, meaning when 2 invites comes for the same time, it will accept only one.You mentioned, "you should be able to force the free/busy status to make all the items "free" on accept so that all future items can be booked". Any idea how this can be done?Jithesh

Jithesh,Sorry, I remembered incorrectly (Exchange 2003 was a long time ago). Exchange 2007 adds the AllowConflicts feature and the discontinued third-party product ERM also allowed conflicts on Exchange 2003.It could be done with another event sink on the mailbox, but of course that requires code and might turn out to be more expensive than moving the resource mailboxes in question to Exchange 2007 or 2010.Andy