Answers.Body: <p><a href="https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/office/en-US/6105396e-afd8-408e-a83d-eb9c20924da3/subaddressing-or-plus-addressing?forum=outlook" rel="nofollow">No version of Exchange supports subaddressing</a>.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-05-08T07:20:44.147Z
Answers.Text: You could have a workaround by using a catchall. but honestly at that point, is this really a battle worth fighting?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Xavier
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-05-09T07:30:09.367Z
Answers.Text: No, it's not worth the effort IMO ... We have a dedicated domain that we use for clients who lack decent mail support, and we could MX crm.example.org there, so yeah we'll probably sidestep the issue rather than engaging it directly.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Chris Burgess
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-05-08T05:43:37.107Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-05-08T05:43:37.107Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jon G - Megaphone Tech
Answers.Body: <p>It shouldn't be too complicated to modify civicrm to be able to process bounces without VERP:</p>
  
  <p>We've added the same information that the VERP contains (basically who was the intended recipient) into the header of the message.</p>
  
  <p>Most (but <strong>not</strong> all mail servers return these into the bounce notification message).</p>
  
  <p>So if:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>you add a config "no VERP"</li>
  <li>you modify the smtp code to not add the VERP (so instead of bounce+blabla@example.org, just bounce@example.org)</li>
  <li>you modify the parsing code for bounce messages to read the blablabla both from the mail address or from the header</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>It should work for <strong>most</strong> recipients mail servers, from the (dis)comfort of your exchange server.</p>
  
  <p>PR welcome and all that</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-05-08T10:02:46.660Z
Answers.Text: This would be a useful feature to get into core?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Graham
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-05-08T10:13:46.080Z
Answers.Text: Personally, compatibility with exchange isn't high on my list, but I see the benefit (that's why I added the "verp header" in the core already). The risk is that folks will use that inferior option even if they have a mail server that can actually handle VERP.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Xavier
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-05-09T07:27:29.227Z
Answers.Text: @Graham perhaps, but that means some org or devs putting further effort into implementing an (inferior, since reduced functionality) no-VERP approach, in a world where VERP-capable mailboxes are plentiful and cheap/free. Time better spent elsewhere IMO.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Chris Burgess
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-05-18T12:18:16.660Z
Answers.Text: Whilst I understand, and in many ways agree with Xavier and @Chris-burgess in that we do live in a world where VERP-capable mail systems are plentiful, we also live in a world where many potential users of CiviCRM already rely on Exchange. As a consequence of not supporting Exchange don't we make it harder for those orgs to successfully implement CiviCRM?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Graham
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-05-18T19:35:29.750Z
Answers.Text: CiviCRM supports using Exchange (http://civicrm.stackexchange.com/q/2322/149), but Exchange doesn't support VERP. CiviCRM can have even better Exchange support if/when someone contributes energy towards it. "Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." :) Scratch your own itches; if that seems like a good place for your org to contribute, go for it!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Chris Burgess
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-05-08T07:27:58.737Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-05-08T07:27:58.737Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Xavier
Body: <p>If an organization is using Microsoft SBS 2011, can they configure it to support <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_envelope_return_path" rel="nofollow">Variable Envelope Return Path (VERP)</a> for the required CiviMail mailbox(es)? What implications will this have on bounce handling if not?</p>
  
Tags: <civimail>
Title: Does CiviCRM VERP work with a mailbox on Microsoft Small Business Server 2011?
ThreadText: # Does CiviCRM VERP work with a mailbox on Microsoft Small Business Server 2011?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2015-05-08)
  
  If an organization is using Microsoft SBS 2011, can they configure it to support [Variable Envelope Return Path (VERP)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_envelope_return_path) for the required CiviMail mailbox(es)? What implications will this have on bounce handling if not?
  
  **Tags:** civimail
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2015-05-08. Score: 2 | Accepted answer
  
  [No version of Exchange supports subaddressing](https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/office/en-US/6105396e-afd8-408e-a83d-eb9c20924da3/subaddressing-or-plus-addressing?forum=outlook).
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: You could have a workaround by using a catchall. but honestly at that point, is this really a battle worth fighting?  
  > **username_0**: No, it's not worth the effort IMO ... We have a dedicated domain that we use for clients who lack decent mail support, and we could MX crm.example.org there, so yeah we'll probably sidestep the issue rather than engaging it directly.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2015-05-08. Score: 1
  
  It shouldn't be too complicated to modify civicrm to be able to process bounces without VERP:
  
  We've added the same information that the VERP contains (basically who was the intended recipient) into the header of the message.
  
  Most (but **not** all mail servers return these into the bounce notification message).
  
  So if:
  
  * you add a config "no VERP"
  * you modify the smtp code to not add the VERP (so instead of bounce+blabla@example.org, just bounce@example.org)
  * you modify the parsing code for bounce messages to read the blablabla both from the mail address or from the header
  
  It should work for **most** recipients mail servers, from the (dis)comfort of your exchange server.
  
  PR welcome and all that
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_3**: This would be a useful feature to get into core?  
  > **username_2**: Personally, compatibility with exchange isn't high on my list, but I see the benefit (that's why I added the "verp header" in the core already). The risk is that folks will use that inferior option even if they have a mail server that can actually handle VERP.  
  > **username_0**: @username_3 perhaps, but that means some org or devs putting further effort into implementing an (inferior, since reduced functionality) no-VERP approach, in a world where VERP-capable mailboxes are plentiful and cheap/free. Time better spent elsewhere IMO.  
  > **username_3**: Whilst I understand, and in many ways agree with username_2 and @username_0-username_0 in that we do live in a world where VERP-capable mail systems are plentiful, we also live in a world where many potential users of CiviCRM already rely on Exchange. As a consequence of not supporting Exchange don't we make it harder for those orgs to successfully implement CiviCRM?  
  > **username_0**: CiviCRM supports using Exchange (http://civicrm.stackexchange.com/q/2322/149), but Exchange doesn't support VERP. CiviCRM can have even better Exchange support if/when someone contributes energy towards it. "Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." :) Scratch your own itches; if that seems like a good place for your org to contribute, go for it!  
  
  ---
  
  