Hello, I'm concerned with a strange case. A user call me, because he had sent a message to some recipients (to and cc) and a few seconds after that he got an out of office replay from a secretary who wasn't mentioned in the To or in the cc field either. I track the message under exchange 2007 and I found that the massage was sent to the mentioned recipients and to two other recipients, the secretary and one other user of mine. I can trust the user when he says to me that there wasn't any bcc. I checked his outlook configuration and I didn't see any rule involving such a result. I opened the concerned e-mail from his Sent Item folder but there's no bcc fiedl, so I can neither check the real state of the mentioned recipients before shiping. I'm really loosing my mind. Thank for any help

Check to see whether the secretary is set up as a delegate of one of the other recipients. Also look at Outlook auto rules.Tony www.activedir.org blog:www.open-a-socket.com

Hi Tony, I checked delegation and auto rules on both client and server side, all empty. I said the user to open again the mail, to click on reply all and send ande the e-mail was again shipped to the two users unmentioned in the to and cc fields (bcc was clear). If the user send other mail they act normally. There's a way to check wether there some hidden rule o to check the real state/code of the outgoing mail. Is strange if I check under Message option of the incomming mail (inthe inbox) I see the Internet header but if I check it again under the Sent Item folder the Internet header field is empty. Regards

You wouldn't see anything in the headers of the sent item because the headers hadn't been generated. Headers would be useless for internal email. It has to be delegates somewhere, that is the only cause of this. It could be a corrupt delegate which isn't seen but is still in the delegates list that the server uses. The way that I use to quickly clear the delegates list is to add someone new to the list (often a test account or something like that). Wait at least 15 minutes for the sever to be updated. Then remove the person from the delegates list. Again wait at least 15 minutes. This should ensure the list is reset. Another option is to look at the original recipients account through adsiedit and look for delegate field and ensure it is clear. Simon.Simon Butler, Exchange MVP Blog | Exchange Resources

Agree with Sembee. How's the issue currently?Please remember to click Mark as Answer on the post that helps you, and to click Unmark as Answer if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.

Hello, I could only try today to insert and delete a delegate. The test stops very quickly because when I tried to add a delegate I got the following error message (sorry for the translation from Italian): "The set of the delegation tab couldn't be correctly saved. Impossible to activate the list of send of behalf of the user. Insufficient rights for the action.". I thogth there was some blocking GPO, but even if I dropped all GPOs (I put the user under users and the machine under computers OU) I still got the message and even if I set the user as local admin of his workstation (not domain admin) nothing changed. What is strange is that i.e. if the user try to set access right to other users with the tab "Authorisation" tab under Propreties of his Calander everything goes right without any problem. If I try to add delegate for this user from the Exchange management concole everithing works just fine. I try with a flat an aged test user and I got the same error message. I try with a freshly created user test and I could add delegate to his mail account without problems. I think that something happened to the delegate propreties during exchange migration? There's some way to clean it up (fix it)? best regards Clemente

Corrupt delegate. That unfortunately means adsiedit.msc will have to be used. You will need to find the user and look for the value msexchdelegate I think it is - or something like that. There may well be a number of entries. They should all be removed. You may get permission errors when you try to look at it, which will have to be corrected. Be very careful in adsiedit - no undo. One false move and you can do a lot of damage. Simon.Simon Butler, Exchange MVP Blog | Exchange Resources

Agree with Sembee’s theory. Please check the value of “publicDelegates” attribute of the problematic user object via ADSI Editor a. Launch ADSI Editor b. Find user object, right-click it and select “Properties” c. Locate “publicDelegates” attribute and check the value Please also try to remove all delegate rules on the problematic mailbox by referring the answer in this thread Resources: Steps to remove the Delegate rules in Exchange OptionsPlease remember to click Mark as Answer on the post that helps you, and to click Unmark as Answer if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.

Any update?Please remember to click Mark as Answer on the post that helps you, and to click Unmark as Answer if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.

Hi all, sorry for the delay, yesturday I took a day off for some homework. Bad News, under ADSI I found that publicDelegates is clear, no entry. There's only an entry (one user) under publicDelegateBL. What's the meaning of this attribute? I also check with MFCMAPI and there isn't hidden or orphaned delegate rules. Back on investigating I've noticed something strange on the result of the Message Verify Tool of Exchange Server. I asked the following view (all messages received from the users unmentioned, sended by the inspected user in the last ten day). The olny wrong message is the spotted message that starts this thread (due to the out-of-office reply). If I goes a step forward I see that all mentioned users (in to and cc fields) are outside our structure. In the result table I see that all the external users have as ClientIp our Exchange Server and as Server Ip an external IP adress(evetId is SEND and source is SMTP). The unmentioned user has as ClientIp the IP adress of the internal adapter of our front firewall (Exchange server is placed in a DMZ of our internal firewall, wich is an ISA machine which publish the exchange server) and as ServerIP our Exchange server. It seems that the mail received by the unmentioned user was comming from the outside. The unmentioned user is related to the recipients mentioned in the To o CC fields. I'm thinking something about a forward rule on the destination server, but the problem is that the mail received by the unmentioned user seems really as it was directly sent by the user, and if it was a forward rule of the destination server why is our user who get the out-of-office reply (instead of the external server/users)? best regards

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:06:38 +0000, CICLo wrote: [ snip ] >Bad News, under ADSI I found that publicDelegates is clear, no entry. There's only an entry (one user) under publicDelegateBL. What's the meaning of this attribute? The publicDelegatesBL contains a "back link" to the mailboxes for which the user is a delegate. If you examine the user object with the DN found in the publicDelegatesBL you'll find your user in that user's publicDelegates property. [ snip ] --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP

So, all the recipients are external e-mail addresses, right? But, you got the OOF from the secretary who is one of your internal mailboxes Quote: “all messages received from the users unmentioned, sended by the inspected user in the last ten day” Who is “users unmentioned”? Could you check if any mentioned recipients in the “To” an “CC” fields have sent messages to secretary right before the secretary triggers the OOF?Please remember to click Mark as Answer on the post that helps you, and to click Unmark as Answer if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.

Well, it will maybe helpfull if I introduce some nick names and re-explain my last post. Let call A the user who wrote the original inspected e-mail B is a secretary in our structure (secretary of C) C is another user in our strucure D, E, F and G are recipients outside our Exchange structure. F is a corporate e-mail (from an external indipendent association which has C as president) A wrote an e-mail with D end E in the To field and F end G in the CC field. A few second after had sent the e-mail A got an OOF reply from B. After inspection in Exchange log the e-mail was sent also to B and C. A second test run the day after shows the same behaviour. The view I asked was "all the e-mails in the last 10 days recieved from B and sent from A", the only wrong routed e-mail is the inspected one (and the second test of corse). The lines regarding D, E, F and G shows external IP adresses as destination adresses. The line dedicated to our two users (B and C) shows the IP adress of the internal adapter of our front firewall as ClientIp our Exchange serverand as ServerIP, like an inbound message flow. Coming to Your question, the secratary didn't get any e-mail from C, D, E, F or G in the hour before the inspected e-mail (B stamped check-out at 16:50 and the e-mail inspected is timed 16:49). She received an e-mail from A 43 minutes before, this e-mail is correctly shown as in internal routing flow. I'm assuming the secretary has trigged her OOF at about 16:40. best regards

According to your description, there’s a connection between F and C Please confirm with F if there’s any rule that will route (Forward/Redirect) mail from F’s mailbox to C’s mailbox Can you post all the messages tracking events that logged the problematic mail flow from A to B and C? I haven’t asked it before, have you checked the following place for the issue: · “ForwardingAddress” attribute Get-Mailbox A | Fl ForwardingAddress · Transport rule. If there’s any rule that related to A, B, or CPlease remember to click Mark as Answer on the post that helps you, and to click Unmark as Answer if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.