I want to know if this issue has been re-addressed and possibly resolved sometime in the last 3 years. Anny assistance will be greatly appreciated. I am running MailEnable Enterprise V9.13.
Thank you in advance.
Re: preventing duplicate messages when user in multiple grou
Report this post
Quote
Postby delta2 » Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:55 am
This is a reply I received from Mailenable earlier this month regarding the issue:
The issue is fairly awkward/complicated due to how the expansion of
the groups and delivery occurs. I will try to explain it below. Exchange
handles the issue by using the message ID and submission time and
remembering this for a certain amount of time and checking to see if a new
message matches. We don't index the message ID, or have a generic database
store for feature additions like this, so creating/adding this is a largish
job.
When a message arrives at the postoffice connector for delivery, it needs to
have any email address resolved to an internal format, and any group
expanded. When it does this, it creates a copy of the email for those
recipients. Ie. your example email will have AAA@domain.com, BBB@domain.com,
and adam@domain.com as recipients. The AAA@domain.com is expanded for all
the members of that group. It does this by creating a copy of the email, for
up to 300 recipients in the group (after that it creates another copy with
up to another 300 recipients, etc). Then it moves to the BBB@domain.com
group expansion, then the adam@domain.com recipient. Meanwhile, any messages
that are created can be processed by the services as soon as they are
written. So the service does not expand all the recipients for all the
groups and recipients into one large list to see if there are any
duplications (expansion can be large if groups are within groups). Resolving
the issue would either require a rework of the whole delivery/resolution
area, or implementing a feature like Exchange does. The problem with the
former is that it does not help you if you get the same duplicate issue with
filtering, lists or forwarding (but it is a simpler method). It is not
something the developers are able to look at changing in the short term.
