Duplicated read receipts
Hi, one of our customers has users downloading their mails via pop3 from their exchange 2007 server. When they receive a mail with a read request the sender receive two read receipts: The first generated by the exchange 2007 server when the mail is downloaded from it and the second when the user reads it in his mail client (Outlook). Is there any option to disable the read receipt sended by the exchange server when the mail is downloaded - but not read by the user ? Sorry for my bad English! Markus
July 19th, 2007 5:24pm
I am pretty sure this is a function of the client, not the server. When is the first "read receipt" being sent? When the user downloads the message? What happens if you configure Outlook's POP service to leave the mail on the server until the user deletes it?
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
July 20th, 2007 3:53am
i agree with your argument,the function of the client ,not the server .
July 20th, 2007 6:52am
Yes it should be a function of the client... The first read receipt is being sent when the user downloads the message The second when the user opens the message in his mail client (outlook or OE) Based on the mailheader of the read receipts the first message comes from the exchange server and the second from the client. I have also tried to leave the messages on the server until the user deletes it but nothing changes. Any idea?
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
July 20th, 2007 2:40pm
I can confirm your issue. We are having the exact same problem. Ever since upgrading to Exchange 2007 we are now sending one MDN from the client (in this case a client called cyclone) and one from the server. Here are a few parts from each MDN: MDN 1: Code Snippet Your message was read on 4/25/2007 3:28 PM. --_002_20455C1A69013F4688A41543E553C286030B95lansv005wolverton_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset= =3Diso-8859-1"> <meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Exchange Server"> <!-- converted from text --> <style>.EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800= 000 2px solid; }</style></head> <body> <font size=3D"2"><div class=3D"PlainText">Your message was read on 4/25/200= 7 3:28 PM.</div></font> </body> </html> MDN 2: Code Snippet This MDN response message is for: Message id: . From: "email@email.com" Date received: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:25:47 -0400 Cyclone Powered(tm) Product 013817814760 ------MP11775293428030 Content-Type: message/disposition-notification Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reporting-UA: lan-ws-101 (Cyclone Interchange) Original-Recipient: rfc822; Client EDI Final-Recipient: rfc822; Client EDI Original-Message-ID: Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; processed ------MP11775293428030 Content-Type: message/rfc822 ------MP11775293428030-- This is causing problems, in that our partners software only expects 1 MDN, and new they are getting 2. Any ideas how to disable Exchange from sending out the duplicate?
July 20th, 2007 10:38pm
Greg, you are seeing this for your POP3 clients, too. I'm asking around about this.
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
July 20th, 2007 11:08pm
Thanks appreciate it.
July 23rd, 2007 11:44pm
Any news about this issue? Markus
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
July 26th, 2007 9:39am
Think I solved it: In Exchange Management Console: Organization->Hub Transport->Remote Domain Click Properties on your remote Domain, Click Message Format Tab Uncheck: Allow Automatic Replies Allow Automatic Forwards Allow Delivery Reports Allow Non-Delivery Reports After you make this change you must restart the Exchange Hub Transport Service Let me know if this works for you, I only tested it on my non-production server, remains to be seen if I still get the 1 MDN that I want from my Cyclone client. -Regards Greg
July 27th, 2007 6:00am
I had a e-discussion with a few folks on the Exchange team and found out that for POP3 clients (as long as you allow delivery receipts are allowed) that the dual read receipts are expected behavior. Exchange generates the first one when the client downloads the messgage as a feature since once the message is out of the Exchange server's hands the go ahead and generate the read receipt. There is no way to turn this off.
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
July 27th, 2007 8:27am
That is what I was worried about. I don't think it should work like that IMHO, I mean how can exchange deliver a report that a message is "Read" when it has just been downloaded via POP. My client did nothave this issue on 2003which leads me to belive it is a new "feature" of 2007? Thanks for looking into that, I appreciate it greatly! Greg
July 28th, 2007 3:48am
I have the same problem. If I upgrade all of my clients to use exchange instead of POP will the double read receipts cease.
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
October 19th, 2007 4:31am
Yes, you only have double read receipts when you use pop3. Regards Markus
October 19th, 2007 11:35am
Guys, Same problem for me tooo. I'm really surprised for not having a solid solution,even in Microsoft Forums after realeasing the Exch2007. Pls let me know if you guys find some workaround solutionfor this problem. Even transport rules are not applying to those Exchange autogenerated read receipts. Pls update me
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
August 18th, 2008 12:27pm
Hi Gauys. Please reference Microsoft TechNetarticle as following Duplicate Read Receipts Are Sent When Using POP3 or IMAP4 http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc296568(EXCHG.80).aspx Regards, Jammy
October 8th, 2008 12:39pm
Can microsoft PLEASE quickly publish a hotfix to disable this "fabulous feature"?First of all it's a heaven for spammers. They automatically get a valid e-mail confirmation if they want to.Second, original message sender gets a read notification, even if I have a mail rule that automatically deletes the message - hence the sender get's a false impression that the message was red. How on earth should they know if recipient's server is exchange 2007 (which sends automatic false read notification) or any other mail server (which doesn't send this false notifications). How on earth should they know which recipient's address will send 2 notifications (and the second one counts) and which recipients will send only one (that which counts).Third, this should be MY decision if I want to send read notifications or not, and not Microsoft's.In this scenario the read notification isn't what it is supposed to be. It is merely a delivery report, not a read notification.Read notifications are widely used by our customers, and believe me, I do not want to be the one that tells them, that if They want to have read notifications working like they're supposed to,they have to buy full outlook (and in some cases windows too) for every computer.PLEASE, PLEASE HOTFIX QUICK or tell me how to disable this "feature" without disabling read notifications in general.
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
May 19th, 2009 1:18pm
Saperus,Hotfixes are written to fix something that is broken :-) Never mind but this is a very much logically supported behavior. When a client downloads an email from the server, it actually marks the email as recievedand downloaded fromthe server so the server sends a reciept on behalf of the client. Second time when the client actually marks the read reciept requested email as read the client originates another reciept. Hopefully, that makes sense. If you read the above linked technet article carefuly it talks about the same. Microsoft isnt a decision maker in this case and they have to stick to what RFCs say. As far as sending duplicate read reciepts is concerned it is same with other POP/IMAP servers as well. If you reconfigure your POPbut not IMAPaccount with Gmail and download all the emails once again read reciepts will be sent upon reading every messages that had a tracking request attached.MMilind Naphade | MCTS:M | http://www.msexchangegeek.com
May 20th, 2009 2:51am
Hello,Interesting....here is something you need to implement on your exchange server.Disable Read reports ouside the organization (internet). read receipts http://forums.msexchange.org/m_1800450544/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#1800450649How to Monitor Exchange 2007 Non-Delivery Reports (NDR)http://www.petri.co.il/monitor-exchange-2007-non-delivery-reports-ndr.htmExchange 2007 send descriptive NDR report for administrator to understand and troubleshoot the issue if it is and here is the KB for understanding NDR.Understanding Non-Delivery Reportshttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb232118.aspxIf you're worried about the hackers and spammer then you may need to implement these things.Features of Exchange Server 2007http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/2007/evaluation/features/default.mspxForeFront security for Microsoft Exchange Serverhttp://www.microsoft.com/forefront/serversecurity/exchange/en/us/default.aspx Arun Kumar | MCSE - 2K3 + Messaging | ITIL-F V3
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
May 20th, 2009 4:50am
Milind Nephade. I just created a gmail account and sent to it an email with read receipt request. I've configured my mail application to use pop3 to access gmail and DOWNLOADED the mail from server. There was no read confirmation. I then opend that email and selected YES to send the read confirmation. Bottom line is - only ONE (not TWO)read confirmation. I really do not know other mail server software that sends duplicate automatic read receipts.Don't tell me this is expected behavior, when it is not. If, for some reason, You really see logic in this double confirmations, then why, when I access my mailbox through OWA, there is no automatic read confirmation? Why is accessing my mailbox through IMAP or POP3 so much different then with OWA or Exchange client? Effect is the same - I can see (I haven't read them yet) all my e-mails.One of our customers is alocal administrative agency. They "somehow" recieve e-mails from other administrative/government agencys with read receipt requests. Whenever they download mail from our servers, the automatic read receipt is generated. READ receipt, not DOWNLOADED BUT NOT YET READ receipt (which is the case). When sender of such an e-mail gets a read receipt, they suppose, that the e-mail was red. There is no way for the sender to tell one confirmation from another as they are identical when viewed from e-mail app.Let's suppose that I accept and understandthis behavior and informed everyone that I know that I will send two read receipts instead of one. After a few months of constant misunderstandings everyone will finally accept my abnormal double read receipts. Let's suppose that for some reason I accesed my e-mail account through OWA, not my usual pop3 client. I recieve an e-mail with read confirmation request. I read it, and click "send read receipt". Than later, in the middle of the night I realize that I've sent only ONE read receipt and my friend is still waiting for the second. I rush to my computer at 3 am to send him an e-mail explaining, that this time the first read receipt was the second read receipt. Remember - both receipts are IDENTICAL, there is no way to tell one from another.Lets sum up.I do not know any other mail server that sends duplicate read receipts (stated above gmail sends only one)If (according to technet article) this is to ensure the sender that his e-mail was recieved, then why is this confirmation identical to read confirmation? Shouldn't it has at least different topic? Stating something like - "Recieved but not yet read"?IfMicrosoftinsists on this feature, shouldn't Microsoft at least give me a checkbox or registry keyto disable this?Disabling read confirmations outside (internet) just isn't a solution, as I also may recieve important e-mails from outside.Forefront security and other things. Do any of us know a mail server software that stops 100% spam and only spam?---EDITAs for RFC's - here's what RFC states about MDN's:1:"At most one MDN may be issued on behalf of each particular recipient by their user agent. That is, once an MDN has been issued on behalf of a recipient, no further MDNs may be issued on behalf of that recipient, even if another disposition is performed on the message."AT MOST ONE (both MDN's are type "displayed") - so what about the first automatic MDN?2:"While Internet standards normally do not specify the behavior of user interfaces, it is strongly recommended that the user agent obtain the user's consent before sending an MDN. This consent could be obtained for each message through some sort of prompt or dialog box, or globally through the user's setting of a preference."User's consent - so what about first automatic MDN?3:"UA performs requested action and, with user's permission, sends appropriate MDN ("displayed", "dispatched", "processed", "deleted", "denied" or "failed" disposition type with "manual- action" and "MDN-sent-manually" or "MDN-sent-automatically" disposition mode)."with user's permission(automatic MDN is of type "displayed") - so what about the first automatic MDN?If You still tell me that this is expected behavior by RFC standards, then I think I don't understand the meaning of words "user's consent" or "user's permission" or "at most one".RFC disposition types:"displayed" The message has been displayed by the UA to someone reading the recipient's mailbox. There is no guarantee that the content has been read or understood.DISPLAYED BY THE UA and NOT downloaded from serverIf Microsoft insists on automatic MDN it should be of type "processed""processed" The message has been processed in some manner (i.e., by some sort of rules or server) without being displayed to the user. The user may or may not see the message later, or there may not even be a human user associated with the mailbox.Does "processed" seems more apropriate? I really think so, as downloading messages from mail server doesn't equals to "displayed by the UA to someone reading the recipient's mailbox". Security Considerations-> Confidentiality"Another dimension of security is confidentiality. There may be cases in which a message recipient does not wish the disposition of messages addressed to him to be known or is concerned that the sending of MDNs may reveal other confidential information (e.g., when the message was read).""could reveal confidential information about host names and/or network topology inside a firewall"Are MDN's broken on Exchange 2007? YES!Hm... I really think that thisrequires a HOTFIX
May 20th, 2009 10:30am
Awesome research I must say. You have answered almost every question yourself. So, what are trying to tell me after reading your own research?1:"At most one MDN may be issued on behalf of each particular recipient by their user agent. That is, once an MDN has been issued on behalf of a recipient, no further MDNs may be issued on behalf of that recipient, even if another disposition is performed on the message."AT MOST ONE (both MDN's are type "displayed") - so what about the first automatic MDN?ACCORDING TO IT THE SERVER/UA OR BOTHSHOULD BE CAPABLE OF KEEPING TRACK OF SENT MDNs. NOW DOWNLOAD YOUR GMAIL EMAILS TO OUTLOOK WHICH ARE WITH READ RECIEPTS. ALLOW YOUR OUTLOOK TO SEND A READ RECIEPT UPON FIRST READ AND THEN MARK THE MESSAGE AS READ. SEE WHAT HAPPENS. refer http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2119.htmlfor more information on terms used. 2:"While Internet standards normally do not specify the behavior of user interfaces, it is strongly recommended that the user agent obtain the user's consent before sending an MDN. This consent could be obtained for each message through some sort of prompt or dialog box, or globally through the user's setting of a preference."User's consent - so what about first automatic MDN?SO WHAT DO YOU ACTUALLY DO WHEN YOU SUPPLY YOUR CREDENTIALS TO DOWNLOAD EMAILS. DONT YOU PROVIDE A CONSENT? "displayed" The message has been displayed by the UA to someone reading the recipient's mailbox. There is no guarantee that the content has been read or understood.HERE IT DOES NOT TALK ABOUT WHAT HAS BEEN DISPLAYED. A WHOLE MESSAGE AND OR MESSAGE HEADERS. IT ALSO TALKS ABOUT:"There is no guarantee that the content has been read or understood.""processed" The message has been processed in some manner (i.e., by some sort of rules or server) without being displayed to the user. The user may or may not see the message later, or there may not even be a human user associated with the mailbox.THE MESSAGE HAS BEEN PROCESSED IN SOME MANNER. THIS CAN BE ANY MANNER THE MESSAGE WAS PROCESSED BY EITHER SERVER OR CLIENT. JUST FYI, what RFCs write is what they really mean. So before you read anything there and make an assumption please do read http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2119.htmlYour other concern about using OWA and POP access together is totally justifiable. I am not Microsoft so can not comment on it yes for this situation I do accept a requirement of a hotfix.Milind Naphade | MCTS:M | http://www.msexchangegeek.com
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
May 21st, 2009 2:18am
Let's put it as simple as it gets.You canconsent only to something You are aware of. You are not aware of automatic MDN's.Giving Your credentials CAN be understood as giving a consent ONLY and ONLY IF I provide clear TOS to users stating that "By logging to our mail server You provide consent to automatically send MDN's on Your behalf". Where oh where "This consent could be obtained for each message through some sort of prompt or dialog box, or globally through the user's setting of a preference." says that this consent can be obtained by logging to mail server?Keeping track doesn't mean taking acctions on my behalfNow. Did You got to the part of RFC where they talk about timeline of events?"4. Timeline of events The following timeline shows when various events in the processing of a message and generation of MDNs take place: -- User composes message -- User tells UA to send message -- UA passes message to MTA (original recipient information passed along) -- MTA sends message to next MTA -- Final MTA receives message -- Final MTA delivers message to UA (possibily generating DSN) -- UA performs automatic processing and generates corresponding MDNs ("dispatched", "processed", "deleted", "denied" or "failed" disposition type with "automatic-action" and "MDN-sent- automatically" disposition modes) -- UA displays list of messages to user -- User selects a message and requests that some action be performed on it. -- UA performs requested action and, with user's permission, sends appropriate MDN ("displayed", "dispatched", "processed", "deleted", "denied" or "failed" disposition type with "manual- action" and "MDN-sent-manually" or "MDN-sent-automatically" disposition mode). -- User possibly performs other actions on message, but no further MDNs are generated."Here's where they talk about WHAT AND WHEN AND BY WHOM can be issued.About "There is no guarantee that the content has been read or understood." - Have You ever looked at the message without reading it just to mark it as read? Have You ever got a message in foregin language that You do not understand? That is what "There is no guarantee that the content has been read or understood." means.A "displayed" MDN can ONLY be generated by UA and ONLY AFTER user has selected that particular message and gave permission to do so.Please remember - DSN is NOT MDNExchange server generates "displayed" MDN 1... no, 2... no 3... no 4, YES 4 steps earlier, without me giving a permission to do so.Talking ablout Outlook generating double read receipts after a little playing with it? So, we're talking about badly implemented MDN handling in USER AGENT, and NOT server.The problem is that the EXCHANGE server generates the first, FALSE "displayed" MDN, not that my outlook after I play a little with it gets confused and send's a second read receipt. You stated correct. What RFC say is what They mean. "displayed" MDN is sent by UA. Please, read the timeline of events to see what RFC say and what They mean.This DOES require a HOTFIX.
May 21st, 2009 12:31pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other recent topics Other recent topics