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.
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.
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.
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.
