|Recipients||rouilj, schlatterbeck, vries|
|In-reply-to||Your message of "Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:17:00 -0000." <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
In message <email@example.com> , Tom de Vries writes: >New submission from Tom de Vries <firstname.lastname@example.org>: >we're using roundup as issue tracker and exchange as email server. > >We have a problem related to an issue with both: >- me and, >- a mailing list I'm a member of in the nosy list. > >When I do an update of the issue, emails get send to me and the mailing >list (due to configuration option NOSY_EMAIL_SENDING == single), with >each email containing only a single addressee. > >when the 2 messages arrive, one stays in my inbox, the other one is >filtered to the mailing list folder. > >The problem is that sometimes only one message arrives (any of the two). >I've tracked this down to the following: >when a message arrives at the exchange server, and that message has the >same Message-id and the same Date field as an earlier message, the >second message is dropped (documented here: >http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd577073%28v=exchg.80%29.aspx#1 >). > >When roundup sends the 2 emails, it sends it with the same message-id, >but not necessarily with the same Date. > >So if the Date field is different, I receive 2 emails. If the Date field >is the same I receive 1 email (the first one to arrive). > >From my user perspective, this is bad: I expect the email addressed to >me to appear in my inbox. > > [...] >If we force the Date to be the same for all messages, I'll never get two >messages, only one (timing-dependent which one). > >If we force the Date to be different for all messages, I always get two >messages, but it's a not so pretty workaround for the specifics of >exchange duplicate message detection, and may not work for other similar >duplicate elimination programs. True, but I think changing the message-id will be more difficult. It should definatly be an option regardless of which solution is adopted. It's really stupid that exchange can't turn that off. I have had duplicate detection in my email chain for a couple of decades, and it's only considered a duplicate if it's the same message (messageid) handled the same way (i.e. is delivered to the same mailbox/folder). >I think the cleanest fix would be to have a different message-id for >each message. But, I'm not sure about the drawbacks of doing that. Well one of the issues is that clients use the In-Reply-To: <msgid> header for threading in a client. The comment in: ./roundup-1.4.19/roundup/mailgw.py: # try in-reply-to to match the message if there's no nodeid indicates that it does compare the in-reply-to (whose value is the message id of the message being responded to) and expects a message id matching what it sent. I am not sure if there is support for a many->1 message-id -> actual message mapping which would be needed if a message resulted in multiple message-id's. >What I understand from the standard (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322) >though is that same or different message-id depends on the intent of the >sender: >... >In all cases, it is the meaning that the sender of the message wishes to >convey (i.e., whether this is the same message or a different message) >that determines whether or not the "Message-ID:" field changes, not any >particular syntactic difference that appears (or does not appear) in the >message. >... >One could argue that the 2 emails messages are different because each >has a different addressee. Well I would claim the message is a response to a single event: the roundup update It really is a single message going to multiple people. Roundup is just changing the envelope addressing and not really the message.
|2012-03-30 19:59:26||rouilj||set||recipients: + rouilj, schlatterbeck, vries|
|2012-03-30 19:59:26||rouilj||link||issue2550752 messages|