Tony Finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> wrote:
> There's a bit more to this ticketing system problem than just the
> auto-responses. (And auto-response suppression doesn't kick in if the
> thread involves people CC:ing each other directly as well as a mailing
> list and a ticketing system etc...)
Right.
So one manual approach that I've taken for over a decade is to email the
ticket system with a mostly empty message, and then reply to that with the
CC. This works for systems that expect that, but for many systems, the
humans behind the system are confused by the "emptyish" message.
{And some ticket systems only like to expose a web interface to start a ticket}
I have sometimes initiated tickets on behalf of another party.
(for instance, my mom). And I wish to be on the CC, but not be the
primary party.
I now have the Subject line (or other thing) initialized, and the other
participants now fill interact with the same ticket.
This is annoying, because I have to wait for an email round trip,
and I have to suspend my (brain) state for awhile.
> There is the related problem that certain common mail software also
> willfully fails to implement standard threading. So even if ticketing
> systems were aware of threads they would still have to cope with other
> mail software that breaks threads.
I am a bit surprised to hear this, because I thought that they all had
figured out threading-by-top-quoting, but I guess I am wrong.
I notice that many ticket systems now try to assume top-quoting, put their
ticket number into the body, and they ask me write above some line.
I am perplexed that there are systems that omit the Subject line with
replying, but I have experienced it. I assume some phones.
I think that many non-IT organizations should make more use of ticketing
systems. Many do, but do not expose them to the public/customers for reasons
which I think are simply a question of short-sighteness, but also because the
interaction is non-standard.
There are also multi-lingual aspects which the lack of standards makes hard,
because the locatization of the actions has to be done centrally.
(French or English first? Both offend someone in Ottawa/Gatineau)
Some solutions that I can imagine:
1) a way to get the ticket initialized with the info in a standard place.
I can imagine new headers for this.
I can also imagine new SMTP verbs for this, but I expect that won't fly.
2) As you and John have suggested, a BCP that explains how to use In-Reply-To
headers tie replies back to the same initial ticket.
3) Some kind of notification from the ticket system with a mime type that
tells me about my ticket and how to interact with it.
Ideally this content could be forwarded as part of the next CC.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] mcr(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on
rails [
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp