> Enterprise-wide network mailing lists are often entirely internal to the
> enterprise and may well show NONE of the aggregation that we have been
> discussing.
Maybe, but it seems to me that the reverse is more likely to be true.
That is, most enterprises have a small number of email hosts, as
compared to the number of users. It's certainly true in our case.
In particular, we have a list of all employees, with about 26,000
addresses on it (larger than most enterprises, I know). If, when we
sent a message, to that list, a separate copy were sent for every
recipient, it would make several of our email systems get bogged down
and, in some cases, die a horrible death. We currently use 100
recipients per copy. It's the largest number that an SMTP server is
required to accept.
Our smaller internal mailing lists also tend to have multiple
subscribers from the same host.
Eric said that aggregation does not matter for LAN-based email systems.
I have to disagree. It certainly does matter for Microsoft Mail.
Sending a separate copy for every recipient will significantly increase
the time taken to pass through the MS Mail SMTP Gateway. Aggregation
by MX host would also help, as there are multiple MX records pointing
at the same gateway.
|
|
