EAC Mobile Device Mailbox Policy Semantics

Ben Rodden 21 Reputation points
2022-09-28T13:39:37.11+00:00

I'm trying to understand something about the Mobile device mailbox policies in EAC in Exchange online. When I look at the list of policies it shows that for my default policy, in the Mobile device encryption column, "Device encryption required", which is good, that is what I want.

When I open up the details of the policy and go to the Security tab, there is an item in that list, which is checked, that says "Request encryption on device". Why does it say request and not require? If it's just a request, can it be ignored, or if a device is not capable of encryption can it still connect?

Microsoft Exchange Online Management
Microsoft Exchange Online Management
Microsoft Exchange Online: A Microsoft email and calendaring hosted service.Management: The act or process of organizing, handling, directing or controlling something.
4,250 questions
Exchange Server Management
Exchange Server Management
Exchange Server: A family of Microsoft client/server messaging and collaboration software.Management: The act or process of organizing, handling, directing or controlling something.
7,415 questions
0 comments No comments
{count} votes

Accepted answer
  1. Vasil Michev 96,676 Reputation points MVP
    2022-09-28T16:46:15.053+00:00

    Seems they changed the wording a bit, it was "Require device encryption" in the classic EAC. In any case, it's an "opportunistic" setting, as not all devices are capable of encryption. Whether the device will be allowed to connect, depends on the value you set for the "Allow mobile devices that don't fully support these policies to sync" setting you configure under the General tab.


2 additional answers

Sort by: Most helpful
  1. Ben Rodden 21 Reputation points
    2022-09-28T13:41:56.357+00:00

    245489-2022-09-28-09-22-43-policy-list.png

    0 comments No comments

  2. Ben Rodden 21 Reputation points
    2022-09-28T13:42:19.863+00:00

    245565-2022-09-28-09-22-43-policy-details.png

    0 comments No comments