New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

1.9.7 - unregistered client emails rejected silently [Feature Request?] #3171

Open
ntozier opened this Issue Jun 3, 2016 · 8 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@ntozier
Contributor

ntozier commented Jun 3, 2016

I noticed this in 1.9.7 and haven't tested in newer versions if someone can test this on 1.9.12 and 1.10rc2 that would be awesome. [ Note: I am running the Authentication::LDAP and AD plugin.]

If you have Admin panel -> Settings -> Access:
Registration Requires: checked
Registration Method: Public

And you attempt to open a ticket by sending an email that is not associated with an account, it fails [silently] and does not generate any kind of message to the person trying to open the ticket saying "Hey you need to register for an account before you can open a ticket!"

There are two ways to catch these failed attempts. 1. by changing Admin panel -> Settings -> System -> Default Log Level to DEBUG and check System Log, or by running a SQL query to check for it.

SELECT created,log FROM ost_syslog WHERE title ='Ticket Denied';

Proposed solution(s):
1: Add a template for rejection notices, and a corresponding Autoresponder setting for enabling/disabling the sending said template.
2: If the Authentication:: LDAP and AD plugin is installed utilize the search user to see if the email is valid and allow the ticket to be opened, and a corresponding plugin setting for enabling/disabling the option.

@intrixius

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@intrixius

intrixius Jun 20, 2016

+1 ! I just found out on our system that we missed a lot of emails due to this problem/shortcoming. It should indeed send an email to the sender to let him/her know they first have to register...
I also am in favour of both solutions (the rejection notice and the LDAP cross check)

intrixius commented Jun 20, 2016

+1 ! I just found out on our system that we missed a lot of emails due to this problem/shortcoming. It should indeed send an email to the sender to let him/her know they first have to register...
I also am in favour of both solutions (the rejection notice and the LDAP cross check)

@greezybacon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@greezybacon

greezybacon Jun 25, 2016

Member

I agree that it would be nice to send an email back. However, osTicket currently does not correspond via email except when the ticket thread is continued. So we currently don't have a way to respond to the email unless we create a ticket, which we aren't since it's being denied.

I like the idea of the LDAP integration, though.

Member

greezybacon commented Jun 25, 2016

I agree that it would be nice to send an email back. However, osTicket currently does not correspond via email except when the ticket thread is continued. So we currently don't have a way to respond to the email unless we create a ticket, which we aren't since it's being denied.

I like the idea of the LDAP integration, though.

@sriddick

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sriddick

sriddick Aug 24, 2016

Has there been any update or progress on this feature request? Or is is possibly now a feature in the newer versions?

sriddick commented Aug 24, 2016

Has there been any update or progress on this feature request? Or is is possibly now a feature in the newer versions?

@ntozier

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ntozier

ntozier Aug 24, 2016

Contributor

Didn't I just tell you in another issue report that this is not a feature at this time?
Yup I did. In the one linked above your response.

Contributor

ntozier commented Aug 24, 2016

Didn't I just tell you in another issue report that this is not a feature at this time?
Yup I did. In the one linked above your response.

@sriddick

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sriddick

sriddick Aug 25, 2016

Thanks @ntozier
Your last comment was not really very productive. Whilst I took note of your reply that "this was not currently a feature" My question was different. The case was opened on the 3rd of June as per your comment, so I was merely enquiring if there has been any progress on adding the feature considering that we are almost at the end of August. No need to be sarcastic.

sriddick commented Aug 25, 2016

Thanks @ntozier
Your last comment was not really very productive. Whilst I took note of your reply that "this was not currently a feature" My question was different. The case was opened on the 3rd of June as per your comment, so I was merely enquiring if there has been any progress on adding the feature considering that we are almost at the end of August. No need to be sarcastic.

@ntozier

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ntozier

ntozier Aug 25, 2016

Contributor

Written text does not convey tone. If it had then you would know that I was not being sarcastic I was being annoyed that you would ask the same question that I has just answered in another thread. IT should be obvious there is no update as it would have been here.

Contributor

ntozier commented Aug 25, 2016

Written text does not convey tone. If it had then you would know that I was not being sarcastic I was being annoyed that you would ask the same question that I has just answered in another thread. IT should be obvious there is no update as it would have been here.

@ntozier

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ntozier

ntozier Dec 1, 2016

Contributor

@JediKev @protich
Can this get an updated dev response please?

Contributor

ntozier commented Dec 1, 2016

@JediKev @protich
Can this get an updated dev response please?

@sriddick

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sriddick

sriddick Dec 1, 2016

sriddick commented Dec 1, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment