<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Kevin Falcone <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:falcone@bestpractical.com">falcone@bestpractical.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 03:06:12AM +0300, Odhiambo Washington wrote:<br>
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Jesse Vincent <[1]<a href="mailto:jesse@bestpractical.com">jesse@bestpractical.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > PS: Is there a reason why<br>
</div>> > CannedReplies<[2]<a href="http://requesttracker.wikia.com/wiki/CannedReplies" target="_blank">http://requesttracker.wikia.com/wiki/CannedReplies</a>>feature<br>
<div class="im">> > is not yet integral part of RT? I'd have thought it better to have,<br>
> > even if not used. I request that it goes into 4.0.0:)<br>
><br>
> RT 4.0 includes RTFM, which provides stock answers functionality.<br>
><br>
> Sorry, but I think CannedReplies looked easier to handle out-of-the-box than RTFM. Perhaps<br>
> this is because I've not quite used RTFM.<br>
> Is there a nice howto somewhere which can make a newbie understand how to use RTFM, now that<br>
> it's paart of the core RT?<br>
<br>
</div>Please have a read through docs/articles_introduction.pod<br></blockquote><div><br>Hi Kevin,<br><br>The last time I looked at RTFM, I simply could not wrap my head around the Custom Fields topic as it appeared to require some in-depth knowledge of RT and perl. Am I wrong in that assumption? OTOH, CannedResponses don't really require that much head knocking. <br>
</div></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Best regards,<br>Odhiambo WASHINGTON,<br>Nairobi,KE<br>+254733744121/+254722743223<br>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ <br>Damn!!<br><br>