EX versus SMTP mail type

A very senior executive assistant is retiring. We've hired her replacement
and she is training her. The retiring person, who is under high stress,
tries to add the new person to her address book in Outlook and is aghast to
see the EX mail type and attendant confusing notation that she has never
seen before.

It occurs to me that this is the first new staff person that we have added
since we moved to using Exchange--everybody else was already in AD and we
just modified properties.

Does it matter? It appears that both styles of addresses work
correctly--i.e. the in-house stuff stays in-house, and external recipients
get usable reply addresses.

I'm just trying to figure out if I should try to get the rest of the staff
addresses set up as EX rather than SMTP?

The new user was added using Server Management, Users. I suspect everybody
else has been hanging around since the 2000 version of SBS, or longer...

Cliff
Wed May 07 17:19:32 PDT 2008

SBS comes "out of the box" for maximum compatibility, so this is normal.
You can change the default addresses and remove unused transport protocols
if you are sure they are unused (and won't be used) but it certainly isn't
necessary.

-Cliff


"Bill Sanderson" <bill_sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote in message
news:12A9EABB-C4B5-4A5F-8317-3D0234CA6316@microsoft.com...
> A very senior executive assistant is retiring. We've hired her
> replacement and she is training her. The retiring person, who is under
> high stress, tries to add the new person to her address book in Outlook
> and is aghast to see the EX mail type and attendant confusing notation
> that she has never seen before.
>
> It occurs to me that this is the first new staff person that we have added
> since we moved to using Exchange--everybody else was already in AD and we
> just modified properties.
>
> Does it matter? It appears that both styles of addresses work
> correctly--i.e. the in-house stuff stays in-house, and external recipients
> get usable reply addresses.
>
> I'm just trying to figure out if I should try to get the rest of the staff
> addresses set up as EX rather than SMTP?
>
> The new user was added using Server Management, Users. I suspect
> everybody else has been hanging around since the 2000 version of SBS, or
> longer...
>

Lanwench
Wed May 07 17:55:07 PDT 2008

Bill Sanderson <bill_sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote:
> A very senior executive assistant is retiring. We've hired her
> replacement and she is training her. The retiring person, who is
> under high stress, tries to add the new person to her address book in
> Outlook and is aghast to see the EX mail type and attendant confusing
> notation that she has never seen before.
>
> It occurs to me that this is the first new staff person that we have
> added since we moved to using Exchange--everybody else was already in
> AD and we just modified properties.
>
> Does it matter? It appears that both styles of addresses work
> correctly--i.e. the in-house stuff stays in-house, and external
> recipients get usable reply addresses.
>
> I'm just trying to figure out if I should try to get the rest of the
> staff addresses set up as EX rather than SMTP?
>
> The new user was added using Server Management, Users. I suspect
> everybody else has been hanging around since the 2000 version of SBS,
> or longer...

No, leave them be - and nobody should be copying from the GAL to their
address books /contacts in outlook. It isn't necessary and can cause
problems down the line (if you make changes, they won't be reflected in that
copy).

Bill
Wed May 07 21:01:11 PDT 2008

"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" >
> No, leave them be - and nobody should be copying from the GAL to their
> address books /contacts in outlook. It isn't necessary and can cause
> problems down the line (if you make changes, they won't be reflected in
> that copy).

Good point. She already had a contact record for the new person's personal
address, and was wanting to add the "work" address--which started the chain
of confusion.

Lanwench
Thu May 08 12:49:21 PDT 2008

Bill Sanderson <bill_sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote:
> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" >
>> No, leave them be - and nobody should be copying from the GAL to
>> their address books /contacts in outlook. It isn't necessary and can
>> cause problems down the line (if you make changes, they won't be
>> reflected in that copy).
>
> Good point. She already had a contact record for the new person's
> personal address, and was wanting to add the "work" address--which
> started the chain of confusion.

Yep. There's no need to put the business email in there, ever, really. The
GAL lookup should happen first - and resolve there.