Hi,
Say I have three smartlist lists on the same host. I send a single message to all three lists:
To: listA, listB, listC
If all three lists contain the same subscriber, that person gets three copies of the message. All three copies have the same (original) Message-ID, but different Resent-Message-IDs.
Is there any way to cause that person to only get one copy of the message instead of three?
The mail server is Mailman on MacOS 10.4, in case that's relevant.
Thanks,
-- Jamie Zawinski jwz@jwz.org http://www.jwz.org/ jwz@dnalounge.com http://www.dnalounge.com/ http://jwz.livejournal.com/
The mail server is Mailman on MacOS 10.4, in case that's relevant.
Duh, sorry, I meant to say Postfix. I'm lost in a maze of twisty passages all alike.
-- Jamie Zawinski jwz@jwz.org http://www.jwz.org/ jwz@dnalounge.com http://www.dnalounge.com/ http://jwz.livejournal.com/
Quoting Jamie Zawinski jwz@jwz.org:
Say I have three smartlist lists on the same host. I send a single message to all three lists:
To: listA, listB, listCIf all three lists contain the same subscriber, that person gets three copies of the message. All three copies have the same (original) Message-ID, but different Resent-Message-IDs.
Is there any way to cause that person to only get one copy of the message instead of three?
SmartList can do nothing here without heavy modifications. It's rather a question of duplicate delivery suppression on the recipient or MTA site. E. g. the cyrus imap/pop3 server would deliver only one copy (with the default configuration). Probably there is also a solution at the MTA (postfix) side. You should ask the postfix community.
Werner
hi,
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 12:39 +0200, Werner Reisberger wrote:
Quoting Jamie Zawinski jwz@jwz.org:
SmartList can do nothing here without heavy modifications. It's rather a question of duplicate delivery suppression on the recipient or MTA site. E. g. the cyrus imap/pop3 server would deliver only one copy (with the default configuration). Probably there is also a solution at the MTA (postfix) side. You should ask the postfix community.
at http://www.postfix.org/faq.html#duplicate you can read how Postfix behaves,
Postfix sends duplicate mail Some people will complain that Postfix sends duplicate messages. This happens whenever one message is mailed to multiple addresses that reach the same user. Examples of such scenarios are:
* One message is sent to the user, and to an alias that lists the user. The user receives one copy of the mail directly, and one copy via the alias.
* One message is sent to multiple aliases that list the user. The user receives one copy of the mail via each alias.
Some people will even argue that this is the "right" behavior. It is probably more a matter of expectation and of what one is used to.
This can be "fixed" only by making Postfix slower. In the above examples, Postfix would first have to completely expand all distribution lists before starting any delivery. By design, Postfix delivers mail to different destinations in parallel, and local delivery is no exception. This is why Postfix can be faster than sendmail.
So, there's no fix on the Postfix side either.
Miquel
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 17:04 -0700, Jamie Zawinski wrote:
Hi,
Say I have three smartlist lists on the same host. I send a single message to all three lists:
To: listA, listB, listCIf all three lists contain the same subscriber, that person gets three copies of the message. All three copies have the same (original) Message-ID, but different Resent-Message-IDs.
Is there any way to cause that person to only get one copy of the message instead of three?
the nightmare way:
create several lists, called, for instance, "only-in-A", "only-in-B", "only-in-C", "in-A-and-B", "in-A-and-C", "in-B-and-C" and "in-A-and-B-and-C". I think the names are self-explanatory.
Then, subscribe "only-in-A", "in-A-and-B" and "in-A-and-B-and-C" to "listA", and all B-related sublists to "listB", and so on.
If you have a web form to handle subscriptions, that should be easy to manage, otherwise it will be a nightmare.
Miquel
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 14:24 +0200, Miquel Cabanas wrote:
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 17:04 -0700, Jamie Zawinski wrote:
the nightmare way:
create several lists, called, for instance, "only-in-A", "only-in-B", "only-in-C", "in-A-and-B", "in-A-and-C", "in-B-and-C" and "in-A-and-B-and-C". I think the names are self-explanatory.
Then, subscribe "only-in-A", "in-A-and-B" and "in-A-and-B-and-C" to "listA", and all B-related sublists to "listB", and so on.
sorry, I've just realized that this will not fix the problem, actually, I think it will make it worse.
Miquel
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Miquel Cabanas wrote:
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 14:24 +0200, Miquel Cabanas wrote:
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 17:04 -0700, Jamie Zawinski wrote:
the nightmare way:
create several lists, called, for instance, "only-in-A", "only-in-B", "only-in-C", "in-A-and-B", "in-A-and-C", "in-B-and-C" and "in-A-and-B-and-C". I think the names are self-explanatory.
Then, subscribe "only-in-A", "in-A-and-B" and "in-A-and-B-and-C" to "listA", and all B-related sublists to "listB", and so on.
sorry, I've just realized that this will not fix the problem, actually, I think it will make it worse.
It would work if list-A is included in list-B, list-B is included in list-C and the following list are created:
list-A list-B-not-in-A list-C-not-in-A-and-not-in-B
(The names are also self-explanatory :-)
smartlist@lists.rwth-aachen.de
-
Jamie Zawinski -
Miquel Cabanas -
Santiago Vila -
Werner Reisberger