Commenting on a request via eMail


#1

Hi!

in rt_users_guide.html the following is said:

— snip —
"The most common way to comment or reply to a message is to use email.
To comment, simply reply to an RT message or create a new
message with
the following string in the subject:

    [RequestTracker #<request id>]

    To reply, simply reply to the message and Cc: the requestor."

— snip —

However - it does not work for me. I think that the rt_users_guide.html
assumes a non standard setup. I have installed rt the way it is
described in the documentation. In my aliases I forward mail to the
gateway:

rt-errors: “|/usr/local/rt/bin/rt-mailgate errors correspond”

I could add another alias which uses “comment” and change the address of
the queue in admin-webrt to the “comment-only”-alias and it would work,
but the way it is described in the users guide is much better.

How can I configure rt to behave as described in the users guide??? (or
is the users guide out of date??)

regards

Matthias

#2

Matthias Ivers ivers@realophob.de writes:

Hi!

in rt_users_guide.html the following is said:

— snip —
"The most common way to comment or reply to a message is to use email.
To comment, simply reply to an RT message or create a new
message with
the following string in the subject:

    [RequestTracker #<request id>]

This is wrong. It should be [<RT_MAIL_TAG> #<request_id>]

    To reply, simply reply to the message and Cc: the requestor."

This is also wrong. The reply goes to the requestor if the ‘send all
correspondence to requestor’ checkbox is ticked,

— snip —

However - it does not work for me. I think that the rt_users_guide.html
assumes a non standard setup.

You’re half right. It’s a combination of local configuration and
wishful thinking on my part.

rt-errors: “|/usr/local/rt/bin/rt-mailgate errors correspond”

I could add another alias which uses “comment” and change the address of
the queue in admin-webrt to the “comment-only”-alias and it would work,
but the way it is described in the users guide is much better.

How can I configure rt to behave as described in the users guide??? (or
is the users guide out of date??)

It’s not out of date, it’s just wrong :frowning:

It wouldn’t be too hard to hack that behaviour in though if you really
wanted. You’ww want to take a look at lib/rt/ui/mail/manipulate.pm and
lib/rt/support/mail.pm.

I’m sure RT2 will give the administrator a lot more
flexibility about when, where and to whom mail is sent.

Cheers,

Michael Brader
Aurema Pty Ltd (formerly Softway Pty Ltd)
PO Box 305, Strawberry Hills, NSW 2012, Australia
Email:mbrader@aurema.com, Tel: +61 2 9698 2322, Fax: +61 2 9699 9174


#3

Wow. the users’ guide is terribly terribly wrong. I’m so sorry.
One of RT’s strengths is that it doesn’t require that you CC the requestor.
Basically, create an alias rt-errors-comment which calls rt-mailgate with
comment rather than correspond. When you want to comment on requests,
send the mail to that alias.

Sorry about that. I'll fix the users' guide when I get home unless

meri beats me to it. winkOn Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 11:37:36AM +0200, Matthias Ivers wrote:

Hi!

in rt_users_guide.html the following is said:

— snip —
"The most common way to comment or reply to a message is to use email.
To comment, simply reply to an RT message or create a new
message with
the following string in the subject:

    [RequestTracker #<request id>]

    To reply, simply reply to the message and Cc: the requestor."

— snip —

However - it does not work for me. I think that the rt_users_guide.html
assumes a non standard setup. I have installed rt the way it is
described in the documentation. In my aliases I forward mail to the
gateway:

rt-errors: “|/usr/local/rt/bin/rt-mailgate errors correspond”

I could add another alias which uses “comment” and change the address of
the queue in admin-webrt to the “comment-only”-alias and it would work,
but the way it is described in the users guide is much better.

How can I configure rt to behave as described in the users guide??? (or
is the users guide out of date??)

regards

Matthias

rt-users mailing list
rt-users@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users


#4

jesse jesse@fsck.com writes:

Wow. the users’ guide is terribly terribly wrong. I’m so sorry.
One of RT’s strengths is that it doesn’t require that you CC the requestor.
Basically, create an alias rt-errors-comment which calls rt-mailgate with
comment rather than correspond. When you want to comment on requests,
send the mail to that alias.

Since it was me that was terribly terribly wrong, I’ve had a quick go
at fixing it. That paragraph in the users guide now says:

The most common way to reply to a message is to use email. To
do this, simply reply to an RT message or create a new message
with the following string in the subject:

[<RT_MAIL_TAG #request id]

where RT_MAIL_TAG is as configured in etc/config.pm

To comment via email, you need to create an alias
<queue-name>-comment which calls rt-mailgate with comment
rather than correspond.  When you want to comment on requests,
send the mail to that alias.

Patch follows:

rug.patch (1.29 KB)


#5

jesse jesse@fsck.com writes:

Basically, create an alias rt-errors-comment which calls rt-mailgate with
comment rather than correspond. When you want to comment on requests,
send the mail to that alias.

I see a way for people to shoot themselves in the foot there.

Basically, user A wants to comment, and mungs the destination address of
his mail to the comment address. RT sends it out to all queue members
with the queue’s e-mail address as sender, and user B wants to followup
on that comment and dashes off a quick reply. It gets sent back to the
requester, and now A and B both have egg on their faces and B had better
run out the door quickly before A makes it over to his cube.

IMHO the global config should have a “comments” address field, and use
that as the from address when mailing comments to the queue members.
There should be no need for a per-queue address since comments would
always be on existing tickets.

Presently I’m kneedeep in an RT installation; I like it muchly, but I and
various cow orkers are finding bit and pieces we’d like to do a bit
differently. I’m starting to put together a shopping list and collection
of proposed patches and hope to have something for the list soon. Will
there be another 1.0.x release, or has 2.0 branched off already? Having
started getting into the code, I’m going to go subscribe to rt-devel.

Anthony DeBoer adb@onramp.ca


#6

Basically, user A wants to comment, and mungs the destination address of
his mail to the comment address. RT sends it out to all queue members
with the queue’s e-mail address as sender, and user B wants to followup
on that comment and dashes off a quick reply. It gets sent back to the
requester, and now A and B both have egg on their faces and B had better
run out the door quickly before A makes it over to his cube.

It’s a known deficiency. In 2.0, we get a per-queue comments address. (as
well as a global comments address as a fallback)

Presently I’m kneedeep in an RT installation; I like it muchly, but I and
various cow orkers are finding bit and pieces we’d like to do a bit
differently. I’m starting to put together a shopping list and collection
of proposed patches and hope to have something for the list soon. Will
there be another 1.0.x release, or has 2.0 branched off already? Having
started getting into the code, I’m going to go subscribe to rt-devel.

There will continue to be new 1.0.x releases for the immediate future, though
they’re almost all “bugfix only” releases. 2.0 is a ground up rewrite. If you
think you’ll be hacking on RT, we encourage you to do your hacking on the 2.0 code.
It’s much cleaner and I think you’ll enjoy working on it a lot more than the 1.0.x code.

jesse 


Anthony DeBoer adb@onramp.ca


rt-users mailing list
rt-users@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users

jesse reed vincent — root@eruditorum.orgjesse@fsck.com
pgp keyprint: 50 41 9C 03 D0 BC BC C8 2C B9 77 26 6F E1 EB 91
"Bother," said Pooh, “Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock
phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three”


#7

Basically, user A wants to comment, and mungs the destination address of
his mail to the comment address. RT sends it out to all queue members
with the queue’s e-mail address as sender, and user B wants to followup
on that comment and dashes off a quick reply. It gets sent back to the
requester, and now A and B both have egg on their faces and B had better
run out the door quickly before A makes it over to his cube.

Yep. This is actually a problem. RT2 handles this better.

“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are
cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”

  • Bertrand Russell

#8

Yes User B should be fired … But …

I wish RT would handle cc’s internally.

  1. I cannot place mail commands into a correspondance without giving out
    my password to anyone I choose to CC.
    1a) RT should read the email, execute the commands, and forward the response
    (or create) with the %RT mail commands stripped out to all cc’d individuals

  2. I would like to keep as psuedo-requestors, anyone who was cc’d on
    create and responces. This way involved parties (other than the requestor)
    would be kept in the loop.On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Tobias Brox wrote:

Basically, user A wants to comment, and mungs the destination address of
his mail to the comment address. RT sends it out to all queue members
with the queue’s e-mail address as sender, and user B wants to followup
on that comment and dashes off a quick reply. It gets sent back to the
requester, and now A and B both have egg on their faces and B had better
run out the door quickly before A makes it over to his cube.

Yep. This is actually a problem. RT2 handles this better.


“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are
cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”

  • Bertrand Russell

rt-users mailing list
rt-users@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users

Mike Boldi
mboldi@shore.net
(781) 586-6178


#9

1a) RT should read the email, execute the commands, and forward the response
(or create) with the %RT mail commands stripped out to all cc’d individuals

Oh I forgot to mention this requires a new mail command
%RT CC fred@bedrock.com,barney@bedrock.com


#10

Oh I forgot to mention this requires a new mail command
%RT CC fred@bedrock.com,barney@bedrock.com

It’s really needed, and I’ve already implemented that in my local version
of RT1. I guess we will implement this for RT2 as well.

“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are
cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”

  • Bertrand Russell