AutoReply vs Notify

RT Users
1

To all,

I have just run into an interesting problem (for me anyway). We have

several notification scrips, all of which specify the action “Notify
Requestor” for such conditions as when the ticket status changes and a
few others. In ALL cases, the E_mail gets sent to the requestor and is
also recorded in the ticket history. All well and good. The scrip we use
for ticket creation specifies “AutoReply to Requestor” and that, too,
works as expected. In an effort to create a little consistency, I
changed the action for the “on create” scrip from “AutoReply to
Requestor” to “Notify Requestor”. Goodness! You’d think I had cut the
power to the Dow Jones Industrial. Nobody got any E-mails, anywhere and
nothing was recorded into the ticket history when a ticket was created.
This is a Global scrip so I guess I really messed up. I couldn’t find
any difference (relevent to the Requestor getting E_mail) in the
description of the two actions in the RT Essentials book (again, I think
this book REALLY NEEDS be re-written). So, my question is, “does anyone
know why this change should make such a difference in the result?” I
really thought the two were a bit redundant, but obviously not. help???

Kenn
LBNL

2

Hi Kenn,

I found the following code Action::Notify and I think it explains why
you’re seeing this behavior.
#Strip the sender out of the To, Cc and AdminCc and set the
# recipients fields used to build the message by the superclass.
# unless a flag is set
if ($RT::NotifyActor) {
@{ $self->{‘To’} } = @To;
@{ $self->{‘Cc’} } = @Cc;
@{ $self->{‘Bcc’} } = @Bcc;
}
else {
@{ $self->{‘To’} } = grep ( lc $_ ne lc $creator, @To );
@{ $self->{‘Cc’} } = grep ( lc $_ ne lc $creator, @Cc );
@{ $self->{‘Bcc’} } = grep ( lc $_ ne lc $creator, @Bcc );
}

If $RT::NotifyActor is not set, then the creator of the transaction (and
with a ticket creation transaction, this is the creator of the ticket) is
removed from the To, CC, and Bcc lists. If $RT::NotifyActor is set then
the To, Cc, and Bcc lists are not modified. I think I read somewhere that
$RT::NotifyActor is set in the site config file.

Regards,
Gene

At 01:33 PM 6/20/2007, Kenneth Crocker wrote:

To all,

    I have just run into an interesting problem (for me anyway). We

have several notification scrips, all of which specify the action “Notify
Requestor” for such conditions as when the ticket status changes and a
few others. In ALL cases, the E_mail gets sent to the requestor and is
also recorded in the ticket history. All well and good. The scrip we use
for ticket creation specifies “AutoReply to Requestor” and that, too,
works as expected. In an effort to create a little consistency, I changed
the action for the “on create” scrip from “AutoReply to Requestor” to
“Notify Requestor”. Goodness! You’d think I had cut the power to the Dow
Jones Industrial. Nobody got any E-mails, anywhere and nothing was
recorded into the ticket history when a ticket was created. This is a
Global scrip so I guess I really messed up. I couldn’t find any
difference (relevent to the Requestor getting E_mail) in the description
of the two actions in the RT Essentials book (again, I think this book
REALLY NEEDS be re-written). So, my question is, “does anyone know why
this change should make such a difference in the result?” I really
thought the two were a bit redundant, but obviously not. help???

Kenn
LBNL

The rt-users Archives

Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com
Commercial support: sales@bestpractical.com

Discover RT’s hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O’Reilly Media. Buy a
copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com

Gene LeDuc, GSEC
Security Analyst
San Diego State University

3

also recorded in the ticket history. All well and good. The scrip we use
for ticket creation specifies “AutoReply to Requestor” and that, too,
works as expected. In an effort to create a little consistency, I
changed the action for the “on create” scrip from “AutoReply to
Requestor” to “Notify Requestor”. Goodness! You’d think I had cut the
[snip]
know why this change should make such a difference in the result?" I
really thought the two were a bit redundant, but obviously not. help???

Hmm.
This explains stuff I’ve seen recently.

ahh, yup , after RTFSource I can see the difference is that
the Notify action suppresses sending and email to the creator
of the tranasaction, where as AutoReply doesn’t.

At least I think thats it…
`
TTFN
Roger. Home| http://www.sandman.uklinux.net/
Master of Peng Shui. (Ancient oriental art of Penguin Arranging)
Work|Independent Sys Consultant | http://www.computer-surgery.co.uk/
New key Fpr: 72AF 0ACC 9A53 E59F B1B6 DC14 1983 A13E 5C3D 3CEB

signature.asc (189 Bytes)

4

At Wednesday 6/20/2007 05:23 PM, Roger Gammans wrote:>On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 01:33:05PM -0700, Kenneth Crocker wrote:

also recorded in the ticket history. All well and good. The scrip we use
for ticket creation specifies “AutoReply to Requestor” and that, too,
works as expected. In an effort to create a little consistency, I
changed the action for the “on create” scrip from “AutoReply to
Requestor” to “Notify Requestor”. Goodness! You’d think I had cut the
[snip]
know why this change should make such a difference in the result?" I
really thought the two were a bit redundant, but obviously not. help???

Hmm.
This explains stuff I’ve seen recently.

ahh, yup , after RTFSource I can see the difference is that
the Notify action suppresses sending and email to the creator
of the tranasaction, where as AutoReply doesn’t.

At least I think thats it…
`

Yes, that’s the intent -

Steve

5

Stephen, Gene, & Roger,

Thanks. I suspected that something like that was the case, but couldn't

find any documentation on it in RT Essentials and wanted to be sure.

Kenn
LBNL

Stephen Turner wrote: