[rt-users] Messages between two rt systems

[Steve Radich]

Just while everyone is on the discussion of endless mail loops..

We once had a LOT of activity on a request as the user we sent a mail to ran
RT, we sent it from the e-mail address tracked in rt.  We got an endless
loop back and forth of the auto replies until we disabled auto replies.

This was a while back (version 1.x) - Is this fixed or does anyone have a
solution to avoid auto replying to another rt system?

Steve Radich
BitShop, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Yan Fitterer [mailto:y.fitterer at ram.ac.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 10:50 AM
To: rt-users at lists.fsck.com
Subject: Re: [rt-users] Bounce messages create tickets


I didn't have a mail storm (this time - but had a rather nasty one a few
months ago where 
the filesystem ran out of space...), merely a bewildered postmaster that
found himself in 
a ticket he didn't really want!

The problem could potentially be painfull if we had loads of requests coming
from outside 
addresses, which we don't. But I would still like to be able to set RT to
recognise 
bounce messages, and treat them accordingly.

Yan



----  On 29 Jan 2002, at 7:46, matthew zeier wrote:  ----

> I had this happen to me and within minutes had 50 new tickets.  My only
fix
> was change the rt incoming mail alias to myself for a bit.
> 
> Perhaps a throttle feature is needed?  More than x tickets in y seconds,
> stop processing and email administrator ?
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yan Fitterer" <y.fitterer at ram.ac.uk>
> To: <rt-users at lists.fsck.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 1:44 AM
> Subject: [rt-users] Bounce messages create tickets
> 
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Just encountered a bit of an annoying behaviour:
> >
> > 1) A user sends a new request
> > 2) RT sends an auto-responder
> > 3) Autoresponder bounces (mailbox full for ex.)
> > 4) Autoresponder is seen as a new request
> > 5) Postmaster of some remote gateway gets autoresponder on ticket
creation
> >
> > Has anybody had that problem before? If yes, is there a known fix?
> >
> > Really what would be best to do, would be to identify "bounce" messages
> (the MAIL FROM in
> > the eveloppe is blank in those), and treat them appropriately.
> >
> > Any other bright ideas on this one?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Yan
> > --
> > Yan Fitterer
> > IT Manager, Royal Academy of Music
> > E-mail : y.fitterer at ram.ac.uk
> > Marylebone Rd, London, NW1 5HT
> > Phone (+44) 20 7873 7365 Fax (+44) 20 7873 7364
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rt-users mailing list
> > rt-users at lists.fsck.com
> > http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
> >
> 


-- 
Yan Fitterer
IT Manager, Royal Academy of Music
E-mail : y.fitterer at ram.ac.uk
Marylebone Rd, London, NW1 5HT
Phone (+44) 20 7873 7365 Fax (+44) 20 7873 7364
  


_______________________________________________
rt-users mailing list
rt-users at lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users