[rt-users] Autoresponder control

[Jesse]

If a regular user submits two, ten or five hundred tickets in a week,
they should get two, ten or five hundred receipts.  I agree that we 
need better bounce control, but vacation-style squelching wouldn't work.



On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 12:39:46PM +0200, Tobias Brox wrote:
> > 	I could easily write up some safety stuff in procmail (which is
> > 	called before stripmime and rt anyway, in our configuration),
> > 	but there doesn't seem to be a way to have RT spit the ticket
> > 	number back out to procmail.  Is it possible to create a ticket
> > 	submission address that doesn't respond, and still have one
> > 	that does, in case of suspected loops?
> > 
> > 	Also -- Jesse, Tobias, you guys need some good logic for the
> > 	RT2 autoresponder code?
> 
> IMO best idea is to do like vacation is doing - limit the system so it
> only sends one autorespond of a given template to a given email at a given
> week.  This would both stop loops and stop annoying the people who
> frequently submit tickets.  I've made #TODO-hooks in the code for
> this.  Jesse thinks this should wait until post-2.0, but I don't think it
> is a much complicated thing to do.
> 
> The traditional idea is to prevent autoreply at mails with a header line
> matching /^Precedence: (junk|bulk)$/i - that's already implemented both in
> RT1 and RT2, but the implementation is a bit better in RT2.
> 
> -- 
> Spell checkers are for wimps
> (please send feedback on all typos)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rt-users mailing list
> rt-users at lists.fsck.com
> http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
> 

-- 
jesse reed vincent --- root at eruditorum.org --- jesse at fsck.com 
pgp keyprint: 50 41 9C 03 D0 BC BC C8 2C B9 77 26 6F E1 EB 91
-------------------------------------------------------------
And I'm told we do share some common rituals. Our "flame war" is apparently 
held in person in their land and called "project meeting".
					-Alan Cox [on "Suits"]