Hi One of our users has called me to say that an alerting system he set up during the week has gone manic and is spewing out thousands of messages to him. He won't be online until later to log on and stop these messages. I'm worried that these messages will cause the DB he is on to run out of space, and also transaction log growth.# Is there a way to reject them? I guess we can put in a transport rule, but I need to go through Change Control for that. How about disabling his mailbox, that will prevent the emails increasing the size of the edb file yeah? Will it also slow transaction log growth? We are running Exchange 2007. But we are moving to Exchange 2010, so I'm curious to know what the solution would be for that, given that from what I've read MS recommend that the DB's use Circular Logging when in a DAG scenario with lagged copy.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:21:21 +0000, Smith1974 wrote: >Hi One of our users has called me to say that an alerting system he set up during the week has gone manic and is spewing out thousands of messages to him. He won't be online until later to log on and stop these messages. I'm worried that these messages will cause the DB he is on to run out of space, and also transaction log growth. I guess that depends on what his mailbox quota is. ># Is there a way to reject them? You leave a lot about your topology and configuration unstated. Is the application using SMTP to send those messages? Is it sending the messages to a particular Receive Connector or to the default receive connector? Is it using anonymous or authenticated connections to send the e-mail? Is it sending the e-mail to a Hub Transport server or to an Edge server? >I guess we can put in a transport rule, but I need to go through Change Control for that. How about disabling his mailbox, that will prevent the emails increasing the size of the edb file yeah? Change Management always has exceptions for emergencies. This sounds like one of them. You can change his SMTP address, but that won't stop your Exchange server from accepting the messages and then trying to send a NDR (if it's the HT server the application's using). If it's sending to a HT server have you installed the anti-spam agents on the HT server? Is the IP address of the sending machine included in the global "Transport Settings"? If it isn't then installing the anti-spam agents and adding the other server's IP address to the IP block list would work. So would just removing the cable from the sending server. ;-) >Will it also slow transaction log growth? We are running Exchange 2007. But we are moving to Exchange 2010, so I'm curious to know what the solution would be for that, given that from what I've read MS recommend that the DB's use Circular Logging when in a DAG scenario with lagged copy. --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP

Thanks Rich. The application is sending using SMTP to our default RECV connector. The topology is: Application server > SMTP Gateway (non-Exchange) > Hub Transport servers We don't have the anti-SPAM agents installed. Reading through your post, I am I correct in thinking that a Hub Transport rule to silently drop all messages from the application's From address to our recipient would be the best thing? Or I could impost a suitable Receive quota, either way, the messages would be dropped? Really what we want to do is stop his mail database growing so large that it affects the other users on it too when it gets too large for the drive. The tricky thing is that the app server in question also runs other alerts which we dont want to mess with, so we can't block the server/its IP altogether.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 23:21:07 +0000, Smith1974 wrote: >The application is sending using SMTP to our default RECV connector. The topology is: > >Application server > SMTP Gateway (non-Exchange) > Hub Transport servers > >We don't have the anti-SPAM agents installed. Based on what you describe below I don't think that having them installed would help. >Reading through your post, I am I correct in thinking that a Hub Transport rule to silently drop all messages from the application's From address to our recipient would be the best thing? Given the fact that you can't stop all the e-mail from the server it would be the most expedient thing to do. >Or I could impost a suitable Receive quota, either way, the messages would be dropped? Really what we want to do is stop his mail database growing so large that it affects the other users on it too when it gets too large for the drive. >The tricky thing is that the app server in question also runs other alerts which we dont want to mess with, so we can't block the server/its IP altogether. --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP

On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:21:21 +0000, Smith1974 wrote: >Hi One of our users has called me to say that an alerting system he set up during the week has gone manic and is spewing out thousands of messages to him. He won't be online until later to log on and stop these messages. I'm worried that these messages will cause the DB he is on to run out of space, and also transaction log growth. I guess that depends on what his mailbox quota is. ># Is there a way to reject them? You leave a lot about your topology and configuration unstated. Is the application using SMTP to send those messages? Is it sending the messages to a particular Receive Connector or to the default receive connector? Is it using anonymous or authenticated connections to send the e-mail? Is it sending the e-mail to a Hub Transport server or to an Edge server? >I guess we can put in a transport rule, but I need to go through Change Control for that. How about disabling his mailbox, that will prevent the emails increasing the size of the edb file yeah? Change Management always has exceptions for emergencies. This sounds like one of them. You can change his SMTP address, but that won't stop your Exchange server from accepting the messages and then trying to send a NDR (if it's the HT server the application's using). If it's sending to a HT server have you installed the anti-spam agents on the HT server? Is the IP address of the sending machine included in the global "Transport Settings"? If it isn't then installing the anti-spam agents and adding the other server's IP address to the IP block list would work. So would just removing the cable from the sending server. ;-) >Will it also slow transaction log growth? We are running Exchange 2007. But we are moving to Exchange 2010, so I'm curious to know what the solution would be for that, given that from what I've read MS recommend that the DB's use Circular Logging when in a DAG scenario with lagged copy. --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP

Hi, Any update? ThanksSophia Xu TechNet Community Support