I think I found it. Further down was a regex I didn't notice before, inside a for-each loop I thought wasn't being used. Changing that as well as the first one seems to have gotten things working.At least for now. :)
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Nilesh <m...@nileshgr.com> wrote: > Please share the code? I think you may be missing a chomp after fetching > your subject header in your variable. This took a good amount of my time > debugging why my thing wasn't working. > > -- > Nilesh > > On 01-Nov-2016 10:20 PM, "Alex Hall" <ah...@autodist.com> wrote: > >> Hey list, >> I've been messing with Email_Local.pm for the last day, but I can't get >> it to work correctly. I need to make the regex used to detect ticket >> replies not require a space before the pound sign. I'm starting to suspect >> that Outlook isn't removing that space, but rather replacing it with some >> Unicode character no one can see, because I can't get this to work. I first >> tried >> /\[$test_name\s*\#(\d*)\s*\]/i >> but that didn't work. So I replaced the first \s* with .* (period >> asterisk) to tell it to match zero or more characters, no matter what they >> are. That, too, fails to work. What I change here seems to have no effect. >> Am I missing a file, other than RT/Interface/Email.pm? Is there some other >> setting or bit of code where this regex is defined and use, or is this file >> the only one? Thanks. >> >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Alex Hall <ah...@autodist.com> wrote: >> >>> You're right. After looking at what showed up on RT, not what was in the >>> subject fields of the two clients, I have the problem. I think. >>> >>> It seems that Outlook is removing the space before the # (pound sign) in >>> the subject tag. That is: >>> Re: [Graphics #400] >>> turns into >>> Re: [Graphics#400] >>> >>> Looks like I get to play with the subject tag regex. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> > On Oct 31, 2016, at 10:16, Nilesh <m...@nileshgr.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > You should inspect the headers in both cases. If they contain >>> in-reply-to, you >>> > can use that to solve the problem. >>> > >>> > My problem originally was people in Cc replying to a mail sent to RT >>> (and by >>> > default, people in CC do not get auto reply email). This was >>> successfully solved >>> > by the in-reply-to patch. https://gist.github.com/nilesh >>> gr/637cdacd1aa7710343aed >>> > e20cabb66a6 >>> > >>> > Just save that file in local/lib/RT/Interface/Email_Local.pm and >>> restart RT. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Nilesh >>> > >>> >> On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 19:36 +0530, Nilesh wrote: >>> >> I don't think Re matters. As long as subject tag is intact it should >>> get >>> >> parsed correctly. >>> >> -- >>> >> Nilesh >>> >> >>> >>> On 31-Oct-2016 7:35 PM, "Alex Hall" <ah...@autodist.com> wrote: >>> >>> I looked more closely at the difference. Outlook is stripping off >>> the "Re: " >>> >>> part of the message subject in the reply, whereas Gmail leaves it >>> on. That's >>> >>> the only difference I can find, but it must matter. I guess this is >>> more an >>> >>> Outlook question now, unless there's something I can change in RT to >>> make it >>> >>> not care about the Re: part of a reply? >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Oct 31, 2016, at 09:52, Nilesh <m...@nileshgr.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> On 31-Oct-2016 7:10 PM, "Alex Hall" <ah...@autodist.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Hey all, >>> >>>>> I made a custom template with mailto: links in it, that comes >>> from norep >>> >>>> l...@example.com. The mailto: links populate the to: and subject: >>> fields of >>> >>>> the new message as they should, and when the new email is sent, a >>> comment >>> >>>> appears on the ticket. At least, if the user does this from the >>> Gmail >>> >>>> website (our domain mail is handled by Gmail). If the user is on >>> Outlook, >>> >>>> however, the "reply" gets turned into a new ticket. I can't see >>> what the >>> >>>> difference is, since the mailto: link is the same. We're on >>> Outlook 2007, >>> >>>> at least the few stations I've asked so far use 2007. Has anyone >>> ever seen >>> >>>> this before? Any troubleshooting suggestions? Thank you. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> -- >>> >>>>> Alex Hall >>> >>>>> Automatic Distributors, IT department >>> >>>>> ah...@autodist.com >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> --------- >>> >>>>> RT 4.4 and RTIR training sessions, and a new workshop day! >>> https://bestp >>> >>>> ractical.com/training >>> >>>>> * Los Angeles - Q1 2017 >>> >>>> Have you verified that the subject tag isn't getting stripped? >>> >>>> There are two ways to identify a reply - one via the subject and >>> other via >>> >>>> in-reply-to header which most clients insert. In-reply-to isn't >>> parsed by >>> >>>> RT, so a custom code is needed for that. >>> >>>> I got it from someone on this list and have implemented as a local >>> >>>> customization. >>> >>>> -- >>> >>>> Nilesh >>> >>> >>> >>> --------- >>> >>> RT 4.4 and RTIR training sessions, and a new workshop day! >>> https://bestpract >>> >>> ical.com/training >>> >>> * Los Angeles - Q1 2017 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Alex Hall >> Automatic Distributors, IT department >> ah...@autodist.com >> > -- Alex Hall Automatic Distributors, IT department ah...@autodist.com
--------- RT 4.4 and RTIR training sessions, and a new workshop day! https://bestpractical.com/training * Los Angeles - Q1 2017
