To all,
I have a user that sent an E_mail to another user and referred to an RT
Ticket and address. The ticket he entered existed (resolved, in fact) in
a different Queue than the address he entered with the ticket.
Consequently, the correspondence was received by the user, but RT placed
said correspondence with the ticket he typed, not the Queue. I figured
that was reasonable, since all attachments hang onto the ticket object
by design. The user said that RT should have caught the error and
refused to update the ticket due to the fact the ticket wasn’t in the
address he entered. My question is this, is there someway to configure
RT to reject the correspondence update due to the fact that the ticket
number entered was NOT in the RT address also entered? If anyone has
done this, please send me some instructions on how. Is this an option I
missed in RT Essentials? Does anyone think it is a good candidate as a
correspondence update option? Thanks.
Kenn
LBNL
At Monday 9/18/2006 03:01 PM, Kenneth Crocker wrote:
To all,
I have a user that sent an E_mail to another user and
referred to an RT Ticket and address. The ticket he entered existed
(resolved, in fact) in a different Queue than the address he
entered with the ticket. Consequently, the correspondence was
received by the user, but RT placed said correspondence with the
ticket he typed, not the Queue. I figured that was reasonable,
since all attachments hang onto the ticket object by design. The
user said that RT should have caught the error and refused to
update the ticket due to the fact the ticket wasn’t in the address
he entered. My question is this, is there someway to configure RT
to reject the correspondence update due to the fact that the ticket
number entered was NOT in the RT address also entered? If anyone
has done this, please send me some instructions on how. Is this an
option I missed in RT Essentials? Does anyone think it is a good
candidate as a correspondence update option? Thanks.
Kenn
Hello Kenn,
I think your first instinct – “I figured that was reasonable” – was
correct! What about the poor user who just wants to send mail to an
existing ticket that, unbeknownst to him, has moved to another queue?
He’d have to get a message saying “sorry we’ve moved your ticket, you
now have to send replies to this new address”, and he’d have to
resubmit his message. And if in the meantime, the queue had been
changed again, he’d get another refusal message and have to resubmit again.
I think you really, really want to give your customers a consistent
reference point for their tickets, and that has to be the ticket number.
Steve
Stephan,
Initially, I felt as you do. Geez, if I put the wrong address on a
letter to someone, they won’t get it. However, the concept of “return to
sender - address unknown” (actually there was a song about this) is a
user-friendly one. Especially if the ticket has moved, it would be nice
to get a note back from RT telling me that the ticket isn’t at that
address. At least I know and can initiate a query on it instead of the
correspondence ending up on the wrong ticket and me not knowing.
Kenn
LBNL
Stephen Turner wrote: