Specifically the point I was making was that if RT logged the
Message-ID of messages which start tickets (or, better, all of them)
in a table with the associated ticket number, then it could check the
In-Reply-To ID on new messages, looking for a ticket that the message
could be in reference to, and treat it as being attached to that ticket
even if it can’t find any of it’s other headers.
iirc, there’s a patch waiting for application which records message ids
into the attachments table (where there’s already a place for it). Point
me at the patch and I’ll get it into 3.4.2.
If I knew where to look. I’ll check around.
(I’m working this implementation out as I go along; could you tell?
I’m tempted to say all MUA’s generate a parseable IRT header these
Where in 2822 does it say I need to do that? /bin/mail sure doesn’t do
3.6.4 is as close as you’ll get: it says that Though optional, every
message SHOULD have a “Message-ID:” field. Furthermore, reply messages
SHOULD have “In-Reply-To:” and “References:” fields as appropriate, as
In practice, /bin/mail may be the only thing left that doesn’t.
I’ll do a little research on this. But given it’s usage, it’s not
required to be globally robust, anyway. If you can use it, you’ll get
it. If you want to be able to use it, you’ll know what you need to
tell people. If you’re corporate, you’ll likely be able to impose the
requirement, if you need to.
this might be a generally useful extension to the mail interface,
since it makes the system even more proof against failing to notice
that a message is on an already open ticket.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve got a fair number of users who start a
new ticket by replying to an old ticket and changing the subject and
body. If this is really the behaviour you want, you should use the
–extension=ticket functionality in rt-mailgate to get ticket-specific
I wasn’t the one who wanted it; I was trying to find a solution for
those people who did. And unless I misunderstand what you say in that
last graf, that won’t help either, because the reply will go to the
same ticket anyway. It’s still a training issue, there, although,
admittedly, “change the addressee” is much easier to teach than “delete
this hidden header”.
Or am I missing something?
Jay R. Ashworth email@example.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
If you can read this... thank a system adminstrator. Or two. --me