Hiya, We have a scenario with the way we handle email which I'm not sure how to solve! We are running 2010 SP1. We have Manager/Secretary pairs and use server transport rules to copy messages sent to the manager to the secretary. This is in itself OK. However, if the secretary has their OOF on the sender of the email, despite only sending it to the manager, gets the OOF reply. Result = confusion on the senders end as they are getting an OOF from someone they didn't send an email to. Then, if staff leave, we delete their mailbox (to conserve CALs), and add them into a single 'Leavers' mailbox. If a message is sent to an SMTP address in this mailbox, an OOF is sent explaining that the mailbox is no longer in use. However, say the secretary leaves but the manager stays (or vice-versa). If an email is sent to both of them (either using To, CC or BCC fields or a combination), the sender will get the OOF saying the mailbox is no longer in use. However, it doesn't say which SMTP address. Result = confusion on the senders end as they do not know which mailbox is actually no longer in use. Our internal policy states old staff mailboxes should be kept for at least 6 months. Am I missing something here, as staff leaving while wanting to retain their mailboxes without consuming CALs is, I imagine, something every company does, so there must be some kind of standard procedure. Thanks

Mailbox does not equal CAL at least for Exchange. That may not be the case for third party products. You can have 100 mailboxes with only 10 CALs if you only have 10 staff members. The problem is your use of a single mailbox, because as far as Exchange is concerned, all mailboxes only have one SMTP address, the default. All others are aliases for inbound email only. You might be better to use a transport rule instead, but that would still cause an issue with knowing who it is from. Simon.Simon Butler, Exchange MVP Blog | Exchange Resources | In the UK? Hire Me.

I wanted to not use transport rules as we would end up with so many it would be a nightmare to manage. I understand that Mailboxes don't equal CALs but we were told by an MS rep that you need a CAL for each physical person. I guess as the mailbox belonged to a physical person we would need to maintain a CAL even after their departure. On the CAL subject, why does the EMC say that we have 73 mailboxes so we need 73 CALs then? All of our mailboxes are of type 'User'.

I don't see how Microsoft could enforce a CAL requirement for ex-staff members. They might like to try to as it would allow more revenue, but that is simply stupid. The Microsoft rep was correct that you would need a CAL for each physical staff member, but I wouldn't count ex-staff. You don't need CALs for shared mailboxes either, and they are pretty much the same. EMC is simply counting mailboxes, it doesn't know whether they are active user mailboxes. I use that count as a guide only, if I bother to look at it at all. Exchange licencing is on an honour system anyway, so as long as you have enough CALs to cover the staff you have, then I wouldn't worry. Of course everything i have written above is completely useless to you. I am not authorised to make a statement you can depend on when it comes to licencing. No one on this forum is. Only Microsoft can do that. You need to get it in writing. The above is my understanding of the CALs. Simon.Simon Butler, Exchange MVP Blog | Exchange Resources | In the UK? Hire Me.