[rt-users] "namespace pollution" and $rtname

[Kai 'wusel' Siering]

Steve Traugott wrote:

> Can anyone provide a real-world example of why domain name needs to be
> used for $rtname?  Google's not coming up with much from the list
> archives, and I'd rather use something cleaner like "Bug" or "Ticket"
> for that string...

Just consider someone, a customer of yours maybe, forward a message
titled "Re: [Ticket #4712] not a bug" to your RT, which you confi-
gured with $rtname "Ticket".
That message would be either incorporated in your RT's ticket number
4712 or rejected because you're not yet have 4712 tickets.
Either way, it's not what should happen and your customer might be-
come rather confused if something like that actually would happen.

This might seem constructed at first sight, but this possibility quite
exists, at least with generics like "ticket", "bug", "request" ... By
using your domain name, one could easily even have two RTs talk to
each other ;)

> mail user were to forward a message from one RT instance to another
> without changing the subject line; something which seems plausible but
> remote.  Has any of this ever actually happened in anyone's experience,
> with any ticketing system?

I know of two ISPs unsig RT for at least some part of their communication.
Both do use their FQDN as their $rtname as well, so forwarding messages
from one ISP to the other does not break anything.

> Or are there plans afoot anywhere to peer RT instances on purpose via
> e-mail, such that namespace issues might later become important even if
> they aren't now?

Consider my example above, using generics like "Ticket", you quite pos-
sibly might get in that kind of trouble. What's wrong with "[TerraLuna.Org #1]"?
			kai

-- 
Kai 'wusel' Siering                       eMail @ home: wusel at uu.org
Traveller on the Information Highway doing full-time administration.
The views expressed here are not neccessarily those of any employer.

Asterisk @ Home: FWD #476654 / +1-747-668-6567 / +49-2222-948-000847