[rt-users] RT behavior when CCs are present in a ticket

[Guadagnino Cristiano]

Hi Ken!

----------------- Messaggio originale -----------------
Da: ktm at rice.edu <ktm at rice.edu>
Inviato: Thu May 30 2013 14:56:22 GMT+0200 (CEST)
A: Guadagnino Cristiano <guadagnino.cristiano at creval.it>
Oggetto: Re: [rt-users] RT behavior when CCs are present in a ticket

>
> Hi Chris,
>
> RT's basic premise is that it is the issue management system and handles
> notifications and updates. If out-of-band additional CC's are done, they
> will get the CC and the RT update. That being said, you can add these
> checks yourself to the scrips that send the "extra" Email to not send
> them in this case. If you do, please put them on the wiki since that seems
> like useful functionality. Having worked with people using the same
> workflow, it resulted in RT missing updates should the updater "forget"
> to reply to RT resulting in missing history. They did much better when
> all they remembered was to just reply to the RT message only and it would
> handle the needed additional notifications.
>
> Regards,
> Ken
>

Ken, you're absolutely right. What you describe is exactly the type of 
workflow I've always been using (and suggesting): just reply to RT and 
let it take care of the rest.

Indeed, at first I was surprised by the complaint.

But then I realized that the described behavior is quite common when 
you're dealing with someone who doesn't know about RT at all.

Perhaps I oversimplified the example, let's rework it this way: Bill 
sends an email to another user (originally not in the ticket CCs) and to 
RT to keep the history updated. The other user knows nothing about a 
ticketing system being in place. When this user replies, he hits "reply 
all" just to be sure. Now Bill receives two emails (one from the user 
and one from RT), and the external user receives his email back from RT.

On the other hand, if the external user does not hit "reply all" but 
only replies to Bill, this reply won't be recorded into the ticket's 
history.

I think (and you seem to agree) that the kind of behavior I suggested 
implementing would be a gain for everyone.

I'll see if I can code it in a scrip, given my less-than-stellar perl 
abilities.

Thank you!
Bye
Cris