Exam MS-102 topic 1 question 242 discussion

N User1 max 50 users per day because both Antispam policies apply for User1 but the least privilege counts, so 50. Y User2 is in Group1 and 2, so both Antispam policies apply but the least privilege counts, so 50 N User3 is excluded from Antispam1 (Group2 excluded) and Antispam2 (User3 exluded)

N - Y - N In Microsoft 365 anti-spam policies, exclusions take precedence over inclusions. This means that if a user is directly included in the policy’s "Applies to" list but also falls under an exclusion (such as being in an excluded group), the exclusion will override the inclusion.

given answer are correct. N policy 1 applied Y policy 2 applied N user3 is excluded from policy1 & 2 , so no restriction

I have doubt only on User3, he is included to send 100 msg per day, however is part of excluded Group2. So exclude wins over include - that's my conclusion as NO

The processing of anti-phishing policies stops for all included recipients, so AntiSpam2 is never applied to recipients who are also in AntiSpam1. AntiSpam1 - user 1 & user 3 (as exclusion wins over inclusion) AntiSpam2 - user 2 only (user 1 & user 3 are already in higher prio policy) answer should be NO YES YES https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-office-365/how-policies-and-protections-are-combined?view=o365-worldwide#:~:text=The%20processing%20of%20anti%2Dphishing%20policies%20stops%20for%20all%20included%20recipients%2C%20so%20Policy%20B%20is%20never%20applied%20to%20recipients%20who%20are%20also%20in%20Policy%20A.

I would say: No, because the antispam1 policy applies and therefore the limit is not 150 messages per day but 100 messages Yes, because the exclude for group 2 prevails the include for antispam1 and therefore the antispam2 is applies on user2 No, because the exclude for group 2 prevails the include for user3 in antispam1 and therefore antispam2 applies on user3

Different conditions use AND logic (for example, <recipient1> and <member of group 1>). The recipient must satisfy all of the specified conditions, which is typically difficult or redundant. Nobody apply to this rule so Y Y Y.

- No - No - No

With Anti-spam, anti-phishing and anti-malware policies (also CA policies), exclusion takes precedence over inclusion Answers are correct FYI the opposite is true fo safe-links and safe-attachment policies - inclusion takes precedence over exclusion

I think is N, Y, Y Once User3 is included to AntiSpam1, user 3 will not be applied to Antispam2 policy. Refer to the following document The priority order matters if you have the same recipient intentionally or unintentionally included in multiple policies, because only the first policy of that type (anti-spam, anti-malware, anti-phishing, etc.) is applied to that recipient, regardless of how many other policies that the recipient is included in. There's never a merging or combining of the settings in multiple policies for the recipient. The recipient is unaffected by the settings of the remaining policies of that type. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/security/office-365-security/how-policies-and-protections-are-combined?view=o365-worldwide

I think User 3 match PolicyName:Anti-spam 1 so the 3rd option is Yes