Weird side effect in the account history after email campaign

Hi everybody,

I figured out a very weird side effect: I sent an email campaign to 1.500 contacts & leads - all mails were send successfully. Afterwards, I found out that the history has been added with one new entry: “email sent (the mail from the campaign) connected to one contact (the first which is assigned to my user in contacts)” in every account. The contact connected to the email entry is the same in every history of an account. I hoped to fix this issue by deleting this contact but the effect was that this history entry still exist but is connected to another contact (the following first contact, which is assigned to me). This contact is again equal in every account history.

I am using SuiteCRM Version 7.7 based on Sugar Version 6.5.24 (Build 509). I tried already a quick repair.

I am looking forward for any hint or support.

Best regards,
Daniel

I am a huge step further with my investigation:

  • The entry in the history of the account is based on the contact related to the account.
  • The relation comes from the email used in the campaign. If I go to “View my Email” and select “My Sent Email” I find the email template I have used for the campaign.
  • If I select this email and click: “View Relationships” I see that all my contact and leads (based on the target list of the campaign) have been related to this email
  • The entry of the history (in leads or contacts) just show the first entry of all related contacts of the email

Now I have still two open questions:

  1. Is this a new feature of the new campaign wizard? Can I disable this feature?
  2. How can I delete this relation to keep my history clean?

Thanks for helping in advance.

Best regards,
Daniel

We have just sent a campaign and we are seeing this issue

Version 7.11.8

Any updates / solution to this?

Can you describe the issue but using database table names? It’s just that it takes a long time to set up and use campaigns for this test, if you can lead me directly to the problematic tables I could have a quicker look at the code.