I think we’re running 1.0.1. Here’s a patch that I keep rolling forward
as we upgrade because it’s turned out to be very helpful in getting
replies back to the queue rather than individuals. The jest of it is to
change the To: and the Bcc: lines in the following manner:
Bcc: $in_recipient$in_bcc
This way, their are no real addresses in the To: line, just an RFC
complaint named empty list of addresses. It’s greatly reduced the amount
of mail that we used to see twice: once as a part of ticket process and
once as a direct reply. It’s also helped funnel things back into the
ticket system since it leaves only the Rt address as an obvious reply
point. I’ve also added some crude filtering against some automated
senders. This could be done much better, but is useful to us.
*** /home/mathew/rt-1.0.1/lib/rt/support/mail.pm Tue Nov 16
02:38:29 1999— /usr/local/rt/lib/rt/support/mail.pm Mon Jun 5
16:15:37 2000
*** 101,113 ****
$in_subject =~ s/^(\s*)//;
open (MAIL, "|$rt::mailprog $rt::mail_options");
print MAIL "Subject: [$rt::rtname \#". $in_serial_num . "]
I actually put code into RT2 to do this last night I’m leery of changing
hte behavior in RT 1.0.x, but I’m sure a lot of folks will find this useful.
Thanks,
JesseOn Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:27:57AM -0700, Monte Mitzelfelt wrote:
I think we’re running 1.0.1. Here’s a patch that I keep rolling forward
as we upgrade because it’s turned out to be very helpful in getting
replies back to the queue rather than individuals. The jest of it is to
change the To: and the Bcc: lines in the following manner:
To: Requestor and $in_queue_id Staff: ;
Bcc: $in_recipient$in_bcc
This way, their are no real addresses in the To: line, just an RFC
complaint named empty list of addresses. It’s greatly reduced the amount
of mail that we used to see twice: once as a part of ticket process and
once as a direct reply. It’s also helped funnel things back into the
ticket system since it leaves only the Rt address as an obvious reply
point. I’ve also added some crude filtering against some automated
senders. This could be done much better, but is useful to us.
*** /home/mathew/rt-1.0.1/lib/rt/support/mail.pm Tue Nov 16
02:38:29 1999— /usr/local/rt/lib/rt/support/mail.pm Mon Jun 5
16:15:37 2000
*** 101,113 ****
$in_subject =~ s/^(\s*)//;
open (MAIL, "|$rt::mailprog $rt::mail_options");
print MAIL "Subject: [$rt::rtname \#". $in_serial_num . "]
I actually put code into RT2 to do this last night I’m leery of changing
hte behavior in RT 1.0.x, but I’m sure a lot of folks will find this useful.
Nod, we use something similar about 6 months, but the change had to be
done a one layer up because modification of Monte’s patch kind (! To:
Requestor and $in_queue_id Staff: disharmonize To: line inside of
e-mail comments, etc.
Thanks,
Jesse
I think we’re running 1.0.1. Here’s a patch that I keep rolling forward
as we upgrade because it’s turned out to be very helpful in getting
replies back to the queue rather than individuals. The jest of it is to
change the To: and the Bcc: lines in the following manner:
To: Requestor and $in_queue_id Staff: ;
Bcc: $in_recipient$in_bcc
This way, their are no real addresses in the To: line, just an RFC
complaint named empty list of addresses. It’s greatly reduced the amount
of mail that we used to see twice: once as a part of ticket process and
once as a direct reply. It’s also helped funnel things back into the
ticket system since it leaves only the Rt address as an obvious reply
point. I’ve also added some crude filtering against some automated
senders. This could be done much better, but is useful to us.
*** /home/mathew/rt-1.0.1/lib/rt/support/mail.pm Tue Nov 16
02:38:29 1999— /usr/local/rt/lib/rt/support/mail.pm Mon Jun 5
16:15:37 2000
*** 101,113 ****
$in_subject =~ s/^(\s*)//;
open (MAIL, "|$rt::mailprog $rt::mail_options");
print MAIL "Subject: [$rt::rtname \#". $in_serial_num . "]
I’m leery of changing