[rt-users] AutoReply vs Notify

[Gene LeDuc]

Hi Kenn,

I found the following code Action::Notify and I think it explains why 
you're seeing this behavior.
     #Strip the sender out of the To, Cc and AdminCc and set the
     # recipients fields used to build the message by the superclass.
     # unless a flag is set
     if ($RT::NotifyActor) {
         @{ $self->{'To'} }  = @To;
         @{ $self->{'Cc'} }  = @Cc;
         @{ $self->{'Bcc'} } = @Bcc;
     }
     else {
         @{ $self->{'To'} }  = grep ( lc $_ ne lc $creator, @To );
         @{ $self->{'Cc'} }  = grep ( lc $_ ne lc $creator, @Cc );
         @{ $self->{'Bcc'} } = grep ( lc $_ ne lc $creator, @Bcc );
     }

If $RT::NotifyActor is not set, then the creator of the transaction (and 
with a ticket creation transaction, this is the creator of the ticket) is 
removed from the To, CC, and Bcc lists.  If $RT::NotifyActor is set then 
the To, Cc, and Bcc lists are not modified.  I think I read somewhere that 
$RT::NotifyActor is set in the site config file.

Regards,
Gene

At 01:33 PM 6/20/2007, Kenneth Crocker wrote:
>To all,
>
>
>         I have just run into an interesting problem (for me anyway). We 
> have several notification scrips, all of which specify the action "Notify 
> Requestor" for such conditions as when the ticket status changes and a 
> few others. In ALL cases, the E_mail gets sent to the requestor and is 
> also recorded in the ticket history. All well and good. The scrip we use 
> for ticket creation specifies "AutoReply to Requestor" and that, too, 
> works as expected. In an effort to create a little consistency, I changed 
> the action for the "on create" scrip from "AutoReply to Requestor" to 
> "Notify Requestor". Goodness! You'd think I had cut the power to the Dow 
> Jones Industrial. Nobody got any E-mails, anywhere and nothing was 
> recorded into the ticket history when a ticket was created. This is a 
> Global scrip so I guess I really messed up. I couldn't find any 
> difference (relevent to the Requestor getting E_mail) in the description 
> of the two actions in the RT Essentials book (again, I think this book 
> REALLY NEEDS be re-written). So, my question is, "does anyone know why 
> this change should make such a difference in the result?" I really 
> thought the two were a bit redundant, but obviously not. help???
>
>Kenn
>LBNL
>_______________________________________________
>http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
>
>Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com
>Commercial support: sales at bestpractical.com
>
>
>Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a 
>copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com


-- 
Gene LeDuc, GSEC
Security Analyst
San Diego State University