This browser is no longer supported.
Upgrade to Microsoft Edge to take advantage of the latest features, security updates, and technical support.
![](data:image/svg+xml, %3Csvg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' height='64' class='font-weight-bold' style='font: 600 30.11764705882353px "SegoeUI", Arial' width='64'%3E%3Ccircle fill='hsl(259.20000000000005, 73%, 35%)' cx='32' cy='32' r='32' /%3E%3Ctext x='50%25' y='55%25' dominant-baseline='middle' text-anchor='middle' fill='%23FFF' %3EM%3C/text%3E%3C/svg%3E)
Hi, I have setup a transport rule in Exchange 2016 to redirect an email based on the sender address. The email in question has a from address of something@keyman .com and a reply-to address of somethingelse@keyman .com.
I am trying to trigger the transport rule based on the reply-to (envelope) sender address but the rule is not matching on the incoming email. Transport rule is setup as per the image below:
Hi Guys,
Sorry for the late response.
So the issue turned out to be quite a strange one. Not sure if anyone has come across it in the past? Basically what happened is that the rule were authored on Exchange 2016 server. When looking at the same rule on an Exchange 2010 server it was visible but all of the logic/rules were missing. I deleted and re-created the rule on Exchange 2010 and the issue was resolved.
Basically the emails were coming in from ProofPoint to the Exchange 2010 server where the blank rule existed so it was not triggered.
Mike.
Hi @Mike00 ,
Thanks for your reply and sharing.
Glad to hear that you have found the cause of this issue and have already got it fixed. would you mind marking your own reply here as answer so that others who might have a similar question can benefit from your thread?
Appreciate your understanding and support.
You should be looking at the "Return-Path" header, not the TO or "Reply To" for the sender envelope.
Hi Andy, thanks for the response. I have checked the email in question and the Reply-To and Return-Path values are the same and the transport rule is configured to look for the address in both of these fields.
Mike.
Your picture says differently :)
It shows the its checking the TO header
Did you blank something out? What is supposed to be looked at there?
Its doing both, checking the To: header field to determine the recipient and the Sender's address which should be matching on the envelope sender (Return-Path). The To: is just matching on the full email address of one of the recipients.
Mike
Change the TO to check "The recipient > is this person" instead and test.
or remove that condition entirely and test- checking only "includes these words in the senders address"
Ok thanks, so select them in the directory instead of specifying an address string value? I will give that a go.
Mike
Hi @Mike00 ,
It has been a while, how is everything going now? Have you got your issue fixed yet?
Based on my experience, if necessary, you could also try the message header condition like below:
If you have any update about this issue, please feel free to post back.
Hi Jeff,
Everything is going well thanks, I did try message header matches condition and have also tested "The recipient" option recommended by Andy. Neither are working for this particular email. I have triple checked the address and edited the transport rule to check the "Envelope and Header" sender value. Nothing is working unfortunately.
Mike.
Change the check to Header and envelope and see if that works:
Hi, thanks for the reply Andy.
Unfortunately even that change has not worked. I even adjusted to match based on the email subject and this also did not work either. I have setup a rule that is almost identical (different sender and subject) which is working perfectly. So I am assuming it is something to do with the system generating this email perhaps.
Mike.
Is there a rule above this with a higher priority that may be preventing this rule from firing?
Hi @Mike00 ,
Any update about your Transport Rule issue yet? As Andy mentioned above, you could try to disable all other transport rules temporarily and run this specific rules alone, so that we can exclude influence from other rules to see if the issue has any difference.