Forum Discussion
Exchange Online Shared Mailboxes deleted after deleting disabled users from local AD
Here is the support article from Microsoft outlining what you were trying to do (with the warning not to delete the user) as well as the steps to recover if you did delete the user - https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Convert-a-user-mailbox-to-a-shared-mailbox-2e122487-e1f5-4f26-ba41-5689249d93ba
I'm also not aware of it being a license violation based on everything I've seen on the topic. I know all the users that access the shared mailbox must have a license, but not aware of any violations of using a shared mailbox to preserve a mailbox, especially if you need to continue receiving email to said mailbox. Here is another good article on the topic as well https://practical365.com/exchange-online/shared-mailboxes-vs-inactive-mailboxes-departed-users/. Still doing some looking into the licensing issue, so I'll update the thread as well if I can find any more details around it.
"Your shared mailbox can store up to 50GB of data without you assigning a license to it. After that, you need to assign a license to the mailbox to store more data."
Source: https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Create-a-shared-mailbox-871a246d-3acd-4bba-948e-5de8be0544c9
I also remember that I have a couple of shared mailboxes from 2015 and 2016 where I did exactly this: Convert to shared mailbox and delete the user account.
Inactive mailboxes are not an option for as as our employees still need access to their mailboxes and folder structure. And frankly, I don't see why I should pay for something like that.
Here is the support article from Microsoft outlining what you were trying to do (with the warning not to delete the user) as well as the steps to recover if you did delete the user - https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Convert-a-user-mailbox-to-a-shared-mailbox-2e122487-e1f5-4f26-ba41-5689249d93ba
I'm also not aware of it being a license violation based on everything I've seen on the topic. I know all the users that access the shared mailbox must have a license, but not aware of any violations of using a shared mailbox to preserve a mailbox, especially if you need to continue receiving email to said mailbox. Here is another good article on the topic as well https://practical365.com/exchange-online/shared-mailboxes-vs-inactive-mailboxes-departed-users/. Still doing some looking into the licensing issue, so I'll update the thread as well if I can find any more details around it.
Thank you for the support article. Having them as "proof" that something is like it is, is always helpful. Although I don't really understand the reasoning behind "Don't delete the old user's account. That's required to anchor the shared mailbox." Why would a Shared Mailbox need an anchor? my other 5 Shared Mailboxes that have not been synced AD Users, don't need an anchor, too.
- Hi Daniel,
Hopefully this clears it up:
1. An on-prem AD account with an Exchange Recipient Type Status of User Mailbox
2. An on-prem AD account with an Exchange Recipient Type Status of a Shared Mailbox
3. A Cloud Identity User Mailbox
4. A Cloud Identity Shared Mailbox
#3 and #4 do not require anchors because their 'source of authority' is Azure AD instead of on-premises AD.
So the reason why your Synced Accounts from on-prem AD require anchors is because their source of Authority is set to on-premises AD (regardless of whether it has Recipient Type status of User Mailbox or Shared Mailbox) .
Converting an Office 365 mailbox from user to shared does not change the source of authority from on-prem to Cloud.
So it makes perfect sense to me that your other 5 shared mailboxes that are not synced from on-premises AD don't require anchors, it is because they were born in the cloud to start out with.Great explanation, thank you.
As long as you don't access it "directly" and you don't use it as Journal replacement, it's not a license violation. But, as usual, any license question should only be clarified with your Microsoft representative - none of us here are qualified to declare it as violation or not.
Vasil,
I agree, I should not have been so explicit as to state "converting a former employee to a shared mailbox is a license violation" however I based this on a Microsoft License Review article:
"Microsoft does not accept use of shared mailboxes and transport rules to circumvent licensing policies. Conversion of users to shared mailboxes for “genuine business purposes” is accepted"
http://www.microsoftlicensereview.com/?tag=office365-licensing-inactive-mailboxes
So while the author of this article is not a Microsoft employee, most of the Microsoft employees I know will defer to licensing specialists like this author for clarification on their own product terms. So I feel it is worth pointing out that people should get something in writing from Microsoft before they convert former employees to shared mailboxes so that they are not harmed during a future Microsoft audit, unless you are willing to pay that penalty for them? (haha!)
But what does this guy know anyway, he is just the Head of Microsoft Advisory Services at a prominent Microsoft software reseller.... just sayin'
-Joe"I agree, I should not have been so explicit as to state 'converting a former employee to a shared mailbox is a license violation' however I based this on a Microsoft License Review article. [...] But what does this guy know anyway, he is just the Head of Microsoft Advisory Services at a prominent Microsoft software reseller.... just sayin' "
Joe, there is no need to be cynical with your latest answer. Nobody disputes what your article is saying. The problem is that you assumed a little too much from the little information I gave, and wrongly concluded that our use case is a violation of terms and stated this, like it is a fact. Now, after your second reply I understand what your point is, but it would have been tremendously more helpful, if you would have explained that under those and those circumstances, my idea would be a violation.
Anyway, I get your point and appreciate the article you linked. Have a nice day.
