1. Kayako Download customers: we will continue to develop and support Kayako Download beyond July 2017, alongside the new Kayako for existing customers.

    Find out more.

Single Email Queue causing Critical error GETPROPERTY

Discussion in 'Technical chat' started by cesarin, Oct 19, 2016.

  1. cesarin

    cesarin Member

    Yes
    the issue is, some of our clients did put their client numbers in the subject with the "#" key code.
    Thus the support center STILL was detecting it as ticket ID identifier.
    So far so good now, I have moved to random too.
    Wish later on Kayako could make custom identifiers to prevent these kind of problems.
     
  2. cesarin

    cesarin Member

    Getting different errors now, not that critical but still...

    "INVALID DATA PROVIDED4" (with the 4).

    FAILED EMAIL EXAMPLE:


    Code:
    Return-Path: <mnewans@XXXXXX.ca>
    Delivered-To: support@XXXXX.net
    Received: from main2.planitsurfit.com
      by main2.planitsurfit.com (Dovecot) with LMTP id kUQlGpTPJFgcLAAAMOHHNA
      for <support@XXXXXXXX.net>; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:50:44 -0600
    Return-path: <mnewans@XXXXXX.ca>
    Envelope-to: support@XXXXXXXX.net
    Delivery-date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:50:44 -0600
    Received: from belmont79srvr.owm.bell.net ([184.150.200.79]:60925 helo=mtlfep01.bell.net)
      by main2.planitsurfit.com with esmtps (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256)
      (Exim 4.87)
      (envelope-from <mnewans@XXXXXX.ca>)
      id 1c4vMx-0002wo-D6
      for support@XXXXXXXX.net; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:50:44 -0600
    Received: from bell.net mtlfep01 184.150.200.30 by mtlfep01.bell.net
      with ESMTP
      id <20161110195002.MUFN5420.mtlfep01.bell.net@mtlspm02.bell.net>
      for <support@XXXXXXXX.net>;
      Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:50:02 -0500
    Received: from MarionsPC ([76.67.9.30]) by mtlspm02.bell.net with ESMTP
      id <20161110195002.DOIB29689.mtlspm02.bell.net@MarionsPC>
      for <support@XXXXXXXX.net>;
      Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:50:02 -0500
    From: "Marion Newans" <mnewans@XXXXXX.ca>
    To: <support@XXXXXXXX.net>
    References: <000701d22af9$5c1b9320$1452b960$@XXXXXX.ca> <000701d22af9$5c1b9320$1452b960$@XXXXXX.ca> <000701d22af9$5c1b9320$1452b960$@XXXXXX.ca> <000701d22af9$5c1b9320$1452b960$@XXXXXX.ca> <000a01d22e0c$4286ee30$c794ca90$@XXXXXX.ca> <2bbaa213ed940538e0eac6d1f50268b7@www.XXXXXXXX.net>
    In-Reply-To: <2bbaa213ed940538e0eac6d1f50268b7@www.XXXXXXXX.net>
    Subject: RE: [#PJE-922-60339]: Member 20080378
    Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:50:11 -0500
    Message-ID: <000701d23b8b$a62a5210$f27ef630$@XXXXXX.ca>
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
      boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01D23B61.BD569400"
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
    Thread-Index: AQHQpF8UpM075W3QavPOPA5kkXjVXAHQpF8UAdCkXxQB0KRfFAI1yL5GArgjSKOggs7wsA==
    Content-Language: en-us
    X-Opwv-CommTouchExtSvcRefID: str=0001.0A020206.5824CF6A.022C,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0
    X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7
    X-Spam-Score: -6
    X-Spam-Bar: /
    X-Ham-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "main2.planitsurfit.com",
    has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
    message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
    similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
    root\@localhost for details.
    Content preview:  Hi Angie, You mentioned that there is a form to fill out .
      Just wondering what happened to that. [...]
    Content analysis details:  (-0.7 points, 5.0 required)
      pts rule name  description
    ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
      0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED  ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
      See
      http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
      for more information.
      [URIs: XXXXXXXX.net]
    -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW  RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low
      trust
      [184.150.200.79 listed in list.dnswl.org]
    -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3  RBL: Good reputation (+3)
      [184.150.200.79 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
    -0.0 SPF_PASS  SPF: sender matches SPF record
      0.0 HTML_MESSAGE  BODY: HTML included in message
    -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL  Mailspike good senders
      0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY  Informational: message has unparseable relay lines
    X-Spam-Flag: NO
    
    This is a multipart message in MIME format.
    
    ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01D23B61.BD569400
    Content-Type: text/plain;
      charset="utf-8"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    
    Hi ,
    
    
    You mentioned that there is a form to fill out .
    
    Just wondering what happened to that.
    
    
    Have a nice day,
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Angie [mailto:support@XXXXXXXX.net]
    Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 10:03 AM
    To: mnewans@XXXXXX.ca
    Subject: [#PJE-922-60339]: Member 20080378
    
    
    Good morning.
    
    We have not received a fax. Our fax number is 705.445.3250.
    Have a great day
    
    Angie
    
    
    
    
    
    




    I'm wondering if this has anything to do with the code change.

    All these emails are not detecting the TICKETID. (the parser returns 0 on the TICKED ID field)


    PS, attaching the full email because the forum has a 1,000 character limit.
     

    Attached Files:

  3. cesarin

    cesarin Member

    Problem solved.

    Some accounts had the "NAME" field empty.
    Solution was to fill either with generic "no name" or with the email address itself when we didnt know the name in question.

    Now I wonder.. is there a way to reprocess all the failed parser emails?
     

Share This Page