Billb wrote
on Thursday 03 November, 2011 at 19:01:03 UTC
John,
JTf has this right, it's not true, however what you may be running into are some issues with unique names and some old school logic.
For example a few versions ago if you had 20 John's in your office all with unique last names and one laid claim to john@smith.com, well, the server would not find that name to be very unique.
I did some extensive testing after we acquired a new company and domain and integrated them into our environement that I was able to have the same single name sent uniquely between two domains.. since that made little sense..
Chris Jones - jones.com
Chris Smith - smith.com
Both exists in the main NAB. Each wants chris@<theirdomain>.com for an address.
All I had to do was ensure that their internet address field in the person document had the unique address and it routed fine.
Some of how your mail routes will depend on your server configuration documents and your domain configuration, but it certainly can be done!
JTf has this right, it's not true, however what you may be running into are some issues with unique names and some old school logic.
For example a few versions ago if you had 20 John's in your office all with unique last names and one laid claim to john@smith.com, well, the server would not find that name to be very unique.
I did some extensive testing after we acquired a new company and domain and integrated them into our environement that I was able to have the same single name sent uniquely between two domains.. since that made little sense..
Chris Jones - jones.com
Chris Smith - smith.com
Both exists in the main NAB. Each wants chris@<theirdomain>.com for an address.
All I had to do was ensure that their internet address field in the person document had the unique address and it routed fine.
Some of how your mail routes will depend on your server configuration documents and your domain configuration, but it certainly can be done!
