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.
"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.
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.
Sorry - at the time of my first post I didn't have the article handy, I wanted to get you the information as soon as possible. I just now found a second reference that should be helpful. This licensing FAQ asks the question:
Q: "If a user leaves my company, and I need to retain a copy of the data in their mailbox and In-Place Archive, what are my options?"
A: (Converting former employees to a shared mailboxes is *not* listed among the three supported options)
Reference:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fproducts.office.com%2Fen-gb%2Fexchange%2Fmicrosoft-exchange-licensing-faq-email-for-business&data=02%7C01%7Cjoe%40patriotconsultingtech.com%7C0b50b22afd2d4c83848f08d53b207c90%7C6c3170a96ccb495aa35a5a7606968598%7C1%7C0%7C636479933091433096&sdata=TNTIAq3NkTuu9RyYvs39Abt7yoiowqFchQtIeJh3JfM%3D&reserved=0
I'm just trying to be helpful so that the community knows to be careful to check with Microsoft before doing something that could potentially harm your organization during an audit down the road.
Inactive mailboxes are still free. For the time being at least.
Joe, thanks for your answer and the effort you put in. But from everything I gather, I still think that using Shared Mailboxes an an archive is not against the terms, if it is accessed by licensed users via delegate access. From your FAQ:
Do shared mailboxes require subscriptions?
No. Shared mailboxes don’t have login credentials, so they are only accessible by licensed users who have been granted delegate access (full mailbox permission, send as, or send on behalf of).
Shared mailboxes do not include a personal archive or legal hold capabilities. If you need these features, then you can purchase either Exchange Online Plan 1 or Plan 2 and assign it to the shared mailbox.
There is no limit to the number of shared mailboxes.
I do recognize, that using shared mailboxes is not listed in the specific question you quoted. But that does not mean that it is a violation, in regards of the FAQ item above.
(I'll just quote it again for the sake of completeness.)
If a user leaves my company, and I need to retain a copy of the data in their mailbox and In-Place Archive, what are my options?
You have several options:
- You can export that user’s data to a PST file and store it on-premises.
- You can retain the data in that user’s mailbox by placing the user on In-Place Hold and marking the mailbox as inactive, as described here. It isn’t necessary to maintain a user subscription license for the inactive mailbox.
- If you have a hybrid deployment of Exchange Server and Exchange Online, you can migrate the mailbox back on-premises. Learn more about hybrid deployments here.
So overall, I don't see any problem with this approach as all our users are properly licensed.
As a side note, Microsoft's withdrawn approach to inactive mailboxes is simply ridiculous. If I take the company I currently work for as an example, we had quite a high staff turnover in 2012–2014 where 40% of the staff changed twice. We currently have 40 old mailboxes and if we would implement what Microsoft called "Inactive Mailboxes", than this alone would cost us $14,400 over 10 years (40 archives x $3 x 12 months x 10 years). This is simply a ridiculous amount to oblige with legal hold laws, especially for a SMB like us. And if you add our currently 50 users to that sum, this amount grows to $32,400. And we didn't even talk about staff turnover in the next ten years or regular shared mailboxes like contact@, management@, et cetera. On top of that, their eDiscovery solution is one of the worst I've every seen in terms of usability.
Ps, I didn't try to dispute your answer, I am just trying to get another point of view across.
