Restricting Max number of Email Recipients?
I have had a few issues with being blacklisted due to some users sending out mass emails to 500-1000 individual recipients. Sometimes the offending sender is putting recipients in the "To" field but usually by using "BCC". Obviously, this is not good.
I have given users a Outlook plugin called "Send Personally" that sends to all recipients as an individual message, but some users without fail still send out using BCC.
So I would like to prevent users from intentionally (or unintentionally) sending to mass amounts of individual recipients. But, the exception is for internal Exchange accounts. I would like to be able set a separate limit for internally routed
messages.
Questions:
1. First off, how can I view what my current "Max Recipient" settings are for Exchange? What is a Shell command for this?
2. Is there anyway to set different limits for internal and external recipients? For example, I don't really want to restrict number of recipients for messages that are sent to internal Exchange users, but I do want to restrict the max number
for external SMTP recipients.
3. Do distribution lists count as 1 or are they broken out into individual users?
For the most part, any internal mass mailings to our organization are using our 4-5 distribution lists.
thanks
March 29th, 2012 4:45pm
Ok, So I have checked all 3 of the following in the Exchange Management Shell:
Get-TransportServer | f1 pickupdirectorymaxrecipientspermessage is 100
Get-TransportConfig | f1 the setting for MaxRecipientEnvelopeLimit is at 5000
get-recieveconnector | f1 the maxrecipientspermessage is at 200
I'm guessing seeing as users can send out to 500-1000 users that the Transportconfig setting of 5000 is the one that applies? Can anyone explain the precendence of how these 3 settings are applied?
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
March 29th, 2012 6:37pm
Hi
Do you have anything update ?Terence Yu
TechNet Community Support
April 2nd, 2012 4:25am
So I dropped my TransPortConfig setting down to 150 from the default of 5000 and attempted to send an email with 200 recipients and it appears to have worked. I recieve NDR stating the max recipients was exceeded.
New question: does the TransPortConfig limit (150) apply to both sending and receiving? If it does how does the receiving aspect work? I assume if an externall user was to send an email to 150 or more individual users
in my domain, and the message makes it passed our spam filter; that exchange would block and send an NDR to the external user?
Lastly, what is a good recomendation for recipient limits to avoid potential blacklisting? I see many posts of ISP's setting to 30-50, but can anyone recommend from experience what a good number is? Is 150 still to high?
thanks
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
April 3rd, 2012 3:11pm
Hi
Quote: does the TransPortConfig limit (150) apply to both sending and receiving?
that exchange would block and send an NDR to the external user?
Answer : Yes
Quote:what is a good recomendation for recipient limits to avoid potential blacklisting?
Answer : According to my experience,150 is high. 50 may be fine.
You had better communicate with your ISP. Some provider's limit is 30 some provider's limit is 100 and so on.Terence Yu
TechNet Community Support
April 3rd, 2012 8:23pm
HI
Terence Yu,
I have one question on above discussion.
Recently in my lab i changed Maxrecipientenvelopelimit from 5000 to 5(Set-TransportConfig -MaxRecipientEnvelopeLimit 5) for testing purpose at organization
level, it worked fine as mentioned above.
But there is change in one particular scenario, i.e when i changed user recipient limit at set it to 10, i was able to send it for more than set at organization level, so it was contradicting above mentioned statement in your answer
My current configuration at organization level is 5 and user level is 10 and user level setting is superseding over organizational level.
Can you please brief on this..
Regards,
Abhijeet
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
October 27th, 2012 4:16am