{"id":425,"date":"2012-07-27T14:42:20","date_gmt":"2012-07-27T19:42:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.exchangedefender.com\/blog\/2012\/07\/delivery-has-failed-to-a-known-good-address\/"},"modified":"2012-07-27T14:42:20","modified_gmt":"2012-07-27T19:42:20","slug":"delivery-has-failed-to-a-known-good-address","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.exchangedefender.com\/blog\/2012\/07\/delivery-has-failed-to-a-known-good-address\/","title":{"rendered":"Delivery Has Failed to a Known Good Address"},"content":{"rendered":"

We have been asked the question of \u201cWhy has delivery failed to a known good address?\u201d many times and there is a pattern of techs not understanding the technology, so we get the \u201cfix this now\u201d, \u201ccan\u2019t you fix this on the server side?\u201d. The answer is no! It is not because we do not want to answer it, but because it is impossible. There is a very easy way to spot a rejection at client side (meaning the mail client). The address that it is trying to reach is NOT the address you are sending to but something along the lines of IMCEAEX\u2026 <\/p>\n

Here\u2019s What the Rejection Will Look Like:<\/font><\/h4>\n
\n

Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:<\/font><\/b><\/h4>\n

‘John Doe’<\/a>
The e-mail address you entered couldn’t be found. Please check the recipient’s e-mail address and try to resend the message. If the problem continues, please contact your helpdesk. <\/p>\n

Diagnostic information for administrators:<\/font><\/b> <\/p>\n

Generating server: XDHUB1.exchange.exchangedefender.com <\/p>\n

IMCEAEX-E@exchange.exchangedefender.com
<\/u>#550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.ExRecipNotFound; not found ## <\/p>\n

Original message headers: <\/p>\n

Received: from XDMBOX2.exchange.exchangedefender.com
([fe80::a8e2:9126:dd6e:8bf8]) by XDHUB1.exchange.exchangedefender.com ([::1])
with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:59:14 -0400
Content-Type: application\/ms-tnef; name=”winmail.dat”
Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
From: Pete Doe <pdoe@test.com>
To: \u2018John Doe’ <jdoe@test.com>
Subject: Test
Thread-Topic: Test
Thread-Index: Ac1pDVsDxEcqf72fRmijT1S+CcvrRA==
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:59:25 -0400
Message-ID: <ABB95AC4A084EB4E81BD7F9CC6900BAD717BF0@XDMBOX2.exchange.exchangedefender.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: <ABB95AC4A084EB4E81BD7F9CC6900BAD717BF0@XDMBOX2.exchange.exchangedefender.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Originating-IP: [123.123.123.123]<\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Here\u2019s the Background on the Issue:<\/font><\/h4>\n

Outlook maintains a nickname list that is used by both the automatic name checking feature and the automatic completion feature. The nickname list is generated automatically as you use Outlook. If the nickname cache is corrupted, Outlook may be unable to identify recipients, may offer incorrect recipients when automatically completing the email address, or may send the message to the wrong person. <\/p>\n

  <\/p>\n

Here\u2019s How You Fix It:<\/font><\/h4>\n
Outlook 2010<\/em><\/h5>\n
\n

1. Open a new email message. <\/p>\n

2. Type the first few characters of the nickname cache entry that you want to remove from the cache. \"Fix<\/a> <\/p>\n

3. When the entry appears in the list of suggested names, move your mouse pointer over the name until it becomes highlighted, but do not click the name. <\/p>\n

4. When the \u201cX\u201d icon appears next to the highlighted name, click X to remove the name from the list. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Outlook 2007 or Outlook 2003<\/em><\/h5>\n
\n

1. Open a new email message. <\/p>\n

2. Type the first few characters of the nickname cache entry that you want to remove from the cache. <\/p>\n

3. When the entry appears in the list of suggested names, use the UP and DOWN arrow keys on your keyboard to select the entry, and then press DELETE on your keyboard. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Outlook Knowledge Base Article<\/a>
“Fix it” Download<\/a><\/p>\n

Carlos Lascano
VP Support Services, ExchangeDefender
carlos@ownwebnow.com<\/a>
(877) 546-0316 x737 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[…]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":40,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-425","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.exchangedefender.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/425","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.exchangedefender.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.exchangedefender.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.exchangedefender.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/40"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.exchangedefender.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=425"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.exchangedefender.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/425\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.exchangedefender.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=425"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.exchangedefender.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=425"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.exchangedefender.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=425"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}