Potential conflict with tracking tokens?

We are currently deploying CRM 3.0 in a 75 user company. One issue we hadn't
anticipated was the adding of a tracking token to all emails to allow replies
to be threaded to the original activity. I understand that the tracking
token has been made a lot more friendly than the original GUID that so many
had objected to. However, no that the identifier is no longer unique, isn't
it going to present problems as more people implement CRM and there will be
conflicts with duplicate tracking token numbers occurring on non-related
correspondence?

I think the idea of being able to track is a valuable feature, but does it
really have to be in the subject line? Personally, all of our pilot users
see the tracking token as unprofessional, but MS only seems to offer turning
off the feature as a solution. Is there no way that tracking could be
achieved in a less obtrusive way?



----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/Businesssol...oft.public.crm

This topic has been talked about on these groups for close to 3 years now.
The only truly "safe" place to add any tracking information is either in the
subject of the body of the message. You can't rely on attributes in the
message header as you can't guarantee that a clients email client will
return those attributes. Anything in the body runs a risk be being word
wrapped as replied text is indented, so the subject ends up being the safest
place.

Do you know of another product that is tracking email in a similar manner
that isn't using this type of token?

Also, if you are that worried about duplicates, change the prefix of the
tracking token to something specific to the client.

--

Matt Parks
MVP - Microsoft CRM


"Jon Freeman" <Jon Freeman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:53EA539E-B168-4331-85C9-41515077C764@microsoft.com...
We are currently deploying CRM 3.0 in a 75 user company. One issue we
hadn't
anticipated was the adding of a tracking token to all emails to allow
replies
to be threaded to the original activity. I understand that the tracking
token has been made a lot more friendly than the original GUID that so many
had objected to. However, no that the identifier is no longer unique, isn't
it going to present problems as more people implement CRM and there will be
conflicts with duplicate tracking token numbers occurring on non-related
correspondence?

I think the idea of being able to track is a valuable feature, but does it
really have to be in the subject line? Personally, all of our pilot users
see the tracking token as unprofessional, but MS only seems to offer turning
off the feature as a solution. Is there no way that tracking could be
achieved in a less obtrusive way?



----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/Businesssol...icrosoft.publi
c.crm

Since it is MS and it is Exchange, I wonder why they don't try something in
the header of the email? Of course there is a chance a proxy might strip it.

"Matt Parks" wrote:

> This topic has been talked about on these groups for close to 3 years now.
> The only truly "safe" place to add any tracking information is either in the
> subject of the body of the message. You can't rely on attributes in the
> message header as you can't guarantee that a clients email client will
> return those attributes. Anything in the body runs a risk be being word
> wrapped as replied text is indented, so the subject ends up being the safest
> place.
>
> Do you know of another product that is tracking email in a similar manner
> that isn't using this type of token?
>
> Also, if you are that worried about duplicates, change the prefix of the
> tracking token to something specific to the client.
>
> --
>
> Matt Parks
> MVP - Microsoft CRM
>
>
> "Jon Freeman" <Jon Freeman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:53EA539E-B168-4331-85C9-41515077C764@microsoft.com...
> We are currently deploying CRM 3.0 in a 75 user company. One issue we
> hadn't
> anticipated was the adding of a tracking token to all emails to allow
> replies
> to be threaded to the original activity. I understand that the tracking
> token has been made a lot more friendly than the original GUID that so many
> had objected to. However, no that the identifier is no longer unique, isn't
> it going to present problems as more people implement CRM and there will be
> conflicts with duplicate tracking token numbers occurring on non-related
> correspondence?
>
> I think the idea of being able to track is a valuable feature, but does it
> really have to be in the subject line? Personally, all of our pilot users
> see the tracking token as unprofessional, but MS only seems to offer turning
> off the feature as a solution. Is there no way that tracking could be
> achieved in a less obtrusive way?
>
>
>
> ----------------
> This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
> suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
> Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
> link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
> click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/Businesssol...icrosoft.publi
> c.crm
>
>
>

But you don't know what the person you are sending the message to is using.
They could be on Yahoo Mail.

--

Matt Parks
MVP - Microsoft CRM


"Nangard" <Nangard@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news123BB1E-B1C5-4619-93D9-25C4880403C4@microsoft.com...
Since it is MS and it is Exchange, I wonder why they don't try something in
the header of the email? Of course there is a chance a proxy might strip
it.

"Matt Parks" wrote:

> This topic has been talked about on these groups for close to 3 years now.
> The only truly "safe" place to add any tracking information is either in
the
> subject of the body of the message. You can't rely on attributes in the
> message header as you can't guarantee that a clients email client will
> return those attributes. Anything in the body runs a risk be being word
> wrapped as replied text is indented, so the subject ends up being the
safest
> place.
>
> Do you know of another product that is tracking email in a similar manner
> that isn't using this type of token?
>
> Also, if you are that worried about duplicates, change the prefix of the
> tracking token to something specific to the client.
>
> --
>
> Matt Parks
> MVP - Microsoft CRM
>
>
> "Jon Freeman" <Jon Freeman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:53EA539E-B168-4331-85C9-41515077C764@microsoft.com...
> We are currently deploying CRM 3.0 in a 75 user company. One issue we
> hadn't
> anticipated was the adding of a tracking token to all emails to allow
> replies
> to be threaded to the original activity. I understand that the tracking
> token has been made a lot more friendly than the original GUID that so
many
> had objected to. However, no that the identifier is no longer unique,
isn't
> it going to present problems as more people implement CRM and there will
be
> conflicts with duplicate tracking token numbers occurring on non-related
> correspondence?
>
> I think the idea of being able to track is a valuable feature, but does it
> really have to be in the subject line? Personally, all of our pilot users
> see the tracking token as unprofessional, but MS only seems to offer
turning
> off the feature as a solution. Is there no way that tracking could be
> achieved in a less obtrusive way?
>
>
>
> ----------------
> This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
> suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
> Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow
this
> link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
> click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>
>
http://www.microsoft.com/Businesssol...icrosoft.publi
> c.crm
>
>
>

Thanks for the help on this. We are all using MS products within the company
and most of our clients are the same, so I guess I had forgotten that
everyone else might not be the same. I see why there might be problems using
the headers, but don't know how much conformity/standardisation there is
amongst the way headers are handled by other software. If the ability to
track is lost in, say, 5% of cases then it might be beneficial to try to
track using the headers knowing that 5% of the time it will fail. It's still
better than turning it off completely, which is a very blunt tool.

Cheers


"Matt Parks" wrote:

> But you don't know what the person you are sending the message to is using.
> They could be on Yahoo Mail.
>
> --
>
> Matt Parks
> MVP - Microsoft CRM
>
>
> "Nangard" <Nangard@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news123BB1E-B1C5-4619-93D9-25C4880403C4@microsoft.com...
> Since it is MS and it is Exchange, I wonder why they don't try something in
> the header of the email? Of course there is a chance a proxy might strip
> it.
>
> "Matt Parks" wrote:
>
> > This topic has been talked about on these groups for close to 3 years now.
> > The only truly "safe" place to add any tracking information is either in
> the
> > subject of the body of the message. You can't rely on attributes in the
> > message header as you can't guarantee that a clients email client will
> > return those attributes. Anything in the body runs a risk be being word
> > wrapped as replied text is indented, so the subject ends up being the
> safest
> > place.
> >
> > Do you know of another product that is tracking email in a similar manner
> > that isn't using this type of token?
> >
> > Also, if you are that worried about duplicates, change the prefix of the
> > tracking token to something specific to the client.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Matt Parks
> > MVP - Microsoft CRM
> >
> >
> > "Jon Freeman" <Jon Freeman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:53EA539E-B168-4331-85C9-41515077C764@microsoft.com...
> > We are currently deploying CRM 3.0 in a 75 user company. One issue we
> > hadn't
> > anticipated was the adding of a tracking token to all emails to allow
> > replies
> > to be threaded to the original activity. I understand that the tracking
> > token has been made a lot more friendly than the original GUID that so
> many
> > had objected to. However, no that the identifier is no longer unique,
> isn't
> > it going to present problems as more people implement CRM and there will
> be
> > conflicts with duplicate tracking token numbers occurring on non-related
> > correspondence?
> >
> > I think the idea of being able to track is a valuable feature, but does it
> > really have to be in the subject line? Personally, all of our pilot users
> > see the tracking token as unprofessional, but MS only seems to offer
> turning
> > off the feature as a solution. Is there no way that tracking could be
> > achieved in a less obtrusive way?
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------
> > This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
> > suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
> > Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow
> this
> > link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
> > click "I Agree" in the message pane.
> >
> >
> http://www.microsoft.com/Businesssol...icrosoft.publi
> > c.crm
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>