After our recent post Introducing more control over Direct Send in Exchange Online, there have been more questions about scenarios that are not actually Direct Send such as senders being able to igno...
Updated Aug 07, 2025
Version 7.0
Blog Post
StringFolk I agree. It seems odd to me to hear "this is the way SMTP operates" from some of the Microsoft guys. What's the point of adding in this feature if you're going to say "this is the way SMTP operates" with this feature. I mean what's the point? If there's a 'default send connector' built in that "operates SMTP" (I promise I'm not trying to be snarky or sarcastic with my quotes. Just trying to understand), then what would this feature even be used for? It seems like another default incoming/outgoing connector built in. It's almost like you're trying to re-invent the wheel here.
jberg7120 I think part of the issue is that these terms aren't well defined. Since there is only a single endpoint for all types of SMTP submission, there really is no systematic differentiation between the different types. Instead, a combination of factors is used to determine whether a submission is allowed. Some of these factors are visible/manageable by tenant admins via mail flow rules and connectors, but others are not (e.g. allow internal recipients only for unauthenticated submissions). That means that the definition of "Direct Send" doesn't really match what they've said here, which is essentially "Sending directly to the endpoint." -- not untrue, but also true of both IP-based connectors and authenticated smtp client submission.