On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 04:49:39PM -0500, Jesse Vincent wrote:
> > Specifically the point I was making was that if RT logged the
> > Message-ID of messages which start tickets (or, better, all of them)
> > in a table with the associated ticket number, then it could check the
> > In-Reply-To ID on new messages, looking for a ticket that the message
> > could be in reference to, and treat it as being attached to that ticket
> > even if it can't find any of it's other headers.
>
> iirc, there's a patch waiting for application which records message ids
> into the attachments table (where there's already a place for it). Point
> me at the patch and I'll get it into 3.4.2.
If I knew where to look. :-) I'll check around.
> > (I'm working this implementation out as I go along; could you tell? :-)
> >
> > I'm tempted to say *all* MUA's generate a parseable IRT header these
> > days;
>
> Where in 2822 does it say I need to do that? /bin/mail sure doesn't do
> that.
3.6.4 is as close as you'll get: it says that Though optional, every
message SHOULD have a "Message-ID:" field. Furthermore, reply messages
SHOULD have "In-Reply-To:" and "References:" fields as appropriate, as
described below.
In practice, /bin/mail may be the only thing left that doesn't.
I'll do a little research on this. But given it's usage, it's not
required to be globally robust, anyway. If you can use it, you'll get
it. If you *want* to be able to use it, you'll know what you need to
tell people. If you're corporate, you'll likely be able to impose the
requirement, if you need to.
> > this might be a generally useful extension to the mail interface,
> > since it makes the system even more proof against failing to notice
> > that a message is on an already open ticket.
>
> I don't know about you, but I've got a fair number of users who start a
> new ticket by replying to an old ticket and changing the subject and
> body. If this is really the behaviour you want, you should use the
> --extension=ticket functionality in rt-mailgate to get ticket-specific
> email addresses.
I wasn't the one who wanted it; I was trying to find a solution for
those people who did. And unless I misunderstand what you say in that
last graf, that won't help either, because the reply will go to the
same ticket *anyway*. It's *still* a training issue, there, although,
admittedly, "change the addressee" is much easier to teach than "delete
this hidden header".
Or am I missing something?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra at baylink.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
If you can read this... thank a system adminstrator. Or two. --me