Help needed for RT 3.06 email workflow

RT Users
1

BUT i’d like to know if someone has an idea on how to
implement my workflow. What i’d like is some scrip to somehow
Notify ALL email addresses which have ever replied to a
ticket no matter if these email-addresses are real RT-Users
or not. Which would be all email addresses from ALL
attachments belonging to a certain ticket.

An alternative might ba to have a custom scrip which adds the
sender of an email as a CC-Watcher “On Correspond” (given the
address is not already a watcher).

I think this latter option is what you should do. It should be pretty
straightforward. However, your logic seems to have a a couple of slight
flaws. (may not matter in your particular scenario, though):

1.) If PersonA forwards the mail to PersonB, then it does not go to RT,
and RT is unaware (at this point) that PersonB is involved. Only after
PersonB responds will RT include them in future interactions. If some
transaction occurs on the ticket before this time, PersonB won’t get
notified.

2.) The reliability seems quite fragile; it depends strongly on exactly
how PersonA forwards (redirects) the mail to PersonB and on how PersonB
replies. One problem would be that PersonB’s mail would go back to
PersonA, instead of going to RT.

3.) All these tickets stay open, and owned by “nobody”? What is the
point of using RT at all here? Why the aversion to having PersonA use
the web interface?

Another point: if this is the workflow you really want, you may be
better off with RT2. It has the ability to manipulate the ticket
ownership and state via email, so you could close some of the holes I
mention above.

2

BUT i’d like to know if someone has an idea on how to
implement my workflow. What i’d like is some scrip to somehow
Notify ALL email addresses which have ever replied to a
ticket no matter if these email-addresses are real RT-Users
or not. Which would be all email addresses from ALL
attachments belonging to a certain ticket.

An alternative might ba to have a custom scrip which adds the
sender of an email as a CC-Watcher “On Correspond” (given the
address is not already a watcher).

I think this latter option is what you should do. It should be pretty
straightforward.

If only I could find some good examples of how to do custom scrips. I can’t
get my head arround to understand what to do with the custom-condition,
preparation and cleanup-code etc.
If someone would have a good example, that’d help tremendously.

However, your logic seems to have a a couple of slight
flaws. (may not matter in your particular scenario, though):

1.) If PersonA forwards the mail to PersonB, then it does not go to RT,
and RT is unaware (at this point) that PersonB is involved. Only after
PersonB responds will RT include them in future interactions. If some
transaction occurs on the ticket before this time, PersonB won’t get
notified.

Which is OK in my case. For me it is sufficient involving RT after PersonB
replies.

2.) The reliability seems quite fragile; it depends strongly on exactly
how PersonA forwards (redirects) the mail to PersonB and on how PersonB
replies. One problem would be that PersonB’s mail would go back to
PersonA, instead of going to RT.

Can be handeled by instructing the few people involved here (in redirecting
the messages initialy).

3.) All these tickets stay open, and owned by “nobody”? What is the
point of using RT at all here? Why the aversion to having PersonA use
the web interface?

The point here is, that we are a manufacturing company and get leads to the
info@addresses - this leads usually are forwarded to a specific person in
inside-sales and then to a REP or Distributor. Using RT makes sure all
communication travels through RT’s database and we have a nice, complete
history of all communication from various people involved (even outside our
company) about a specific lead. This is possible since we can hide the
ORIGINAl Requestors email-address so all replies go through RT.

Another point: if this is the workflow you really want, you may be
better off with RT2. It has the ability to manipulate the ticket
ownership and state via email, so you could close some of the holes I
mention above.

Yes, RT2 would work if we’d only have ONE Language involved. But due to the
Lack of Unicode support, RT2 really isn’t an option. We need to support all
european languages and some asian languages which can’t be handeled with
ISO-8851…

http://www.StefanSeiz.com
Spamto: bin@imd.net