Absolutely essential for a company to do business using helpdesks (have working pre/post process rules).

This greatly simplifies watcher and customer management in more ways than I can describe.

Thanks,
Jim

This issue is a relative of this one:
http://wgmdev.com/jira/browse/CHD-420

Tentatively assigned to milestone #19 as '1 - Must Have' ; but if I have room after timetracking I'll move it into #18.

Sorry for nagging... Been a couple months now so turning the squeaky wheel...

Thanks,
Jim

Coming up on 6 months and no progress yet in reintroducing the excellent filter rules from version 3 into version 4, as far as I can tell?

:(

Thanks,
Jim

Hi Jeff,
Does this mean there is progress on this?

Thanks,
Jim

Please add simple message body filtering to the pre/ and post/ parse rules. Not having this would take us steps backward in cerberus-enabled productivity as we migrade from 3.5 to 4.0

If it can only be in one place, we would vote to put it post-parse rules, as that's where we do most of the heavy lifting for rules.

Pretty please!

Thanks,
Chris

Cerberus' email filtering / workflow automation was one of the original reasons we purchased the software, but with the loss of the email content filtering from 3.5 to 4.0, and the thin set of "actions" that can be taken on filtered tickets, Cerberus seems to have had a major setback in capabilities.

At a minimum, I would expect Cerberus to have the same sort of rules-based filtering as MS Outlook (inspect any of the key attributes of the email (subject, content, from/to, etc) and be able to set key attributes (open/close, awaiting reply, move to a folder) etc.

c'mon cerberus team.

Bring back our pre filters. These were a very big part of cer 3.5 and you took them away, I agree with other posters, this a a BIG step backwards. We have been waiting ever so patiently but no sign of movement to be seen yet.

Quote from user:
http://www.cerb4.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8317&postcount=13

I admittedly havent delved that far into 4 yet - but what I would like to see is the same format as 3. Basically a pull down with "contains/does not contain/equal to/not equal to/regular expression", etc.

for example we use a pre-parse rule where sender address <does not contain> domain.com gets redirected to specific email address - with the following check boxes checked:
"don't send auto-reply"
"don't send notifications"
"don't create ticket from email"

Quotes from user:
http://www.cerb4.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8321&postcount=14

Yes, I agree it should be regex. A drop box with the field names available to filter on.

Filters should have a NOT option as well (not like *xx*)

Ideally, it would be great to be able to test for two conditions in the same filter, with an AND operator, and for each condition to have a negative (not) option.

OR operations would also be nice, but are easy enough to approximate with a separate rule.

Last point: please expand the actions available at the end of the filter. Switching state to to waiting seems a glaring omission since available vs. waiting is one of the core divisions in the group / bucket presentation.

=============

Some examples on our specific business needs for a message body filter:

1) we get payment notifications from paypal, some of which relate to website orders and some of which relate to payment requests we've sent out manually. They need to be treated very differently in our procedures, but the email subject from paypal is identical.
2) we sent out a number of emails to customers asking for their reply on order issues (bad addresses, stockout notices, balances due, etc., ) and copy them into cerberus for tracking and follow-up. We would like to be able to mark these outbound notices all automatically as "waiting."
3) We get emailed order notices from our website, we would like to distinguish "expedite" orders from standard orders, because those orders may require special handling, but can only do so by looking within the email body itself.

Update this thread when finished.

http://www.cerb4.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1686

Had me all excited thinking something has changed in the past month or so.
Just teasing us apparently.

-Jim

PLENTY has changed in the past month on this:
http://github.com/jstanden/cerb4/commit/6922f025f78c73f9bf4003d87e24d9752faca78d
http://github.com/jstanden/cerb4/commit/afacf558e05d15e894afa90532efea8bbd0e1312
http://github.com/jstanden/cerb4/commit/8c5b8710aa5ec7c55af01cf964458a00404271ce
http://github.com/jstanden/cerb4/commit/e5a0e2c1b167953308f94b0efd3d6b4b9ea3dc1f

At this point we're probably not going to add global Post-Parser rules back to 4.x, because that's what the Groups do. You have really flexible rules at Pre-Parser, at Routing, at Group Inbox, and at E-mail Watchers now.

This is staying open for a bit just to make sure we can mine all the good ideas from the comments here, not because it's being neglected.

All I'm asking is for body content filtering to included as it is in version 3.

If I or client put for example the word "closeme" in the body of message we would like that to close the ticket.

Something that can be done?

Thanks,
Jim

Hey Jim:

We're very focused on body content filtering too..

Look at the detail Jeff lists under the first and second github links above.

...
* [Platform] Added message content criteria to filters w/ regular
expression support. This scans a message line by line looking for matches
on keywords or syntax. This was highly requested by people with example
use cases like Paypal receipts for various products, where only the
message body gives context about what the payment was for (same subject
and 'To:'), and each product has a different group.

...
* [Group Inbox Filters] Inbox Filters can now scan the message content
using regular expressions as a criteria.

My read is that body content filtering is coming soon..

-C

Whoohoo! A new update.

Does this mean progress is forthcoming?

Thanks,
Jim

Hi folks,
Hoping to have this implemented in 4.3?

I see the 4.2.2 just came out, but no joy. :(

Thanks,
Jim

Update this thread when completed.
http://www.cerb4.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11151&postcount=1

In 4.2.3 I made it a lot easier to do completely custom criteria/actions on Pre-Parser rules:
http://vimeo.com/channels/cerb4#5810661

Hopefully that should solve a lot of these requests.

Nice new methodolgy.
So does this mean in 4.3 you'll have replicated the 3.0 pre-parser rules we are so hoping you'll put back in place (in particular the ability to parse by body text)?

Thanks,
Jim

@Jim and anybody else interested:

I opened a new spin-off JIRA request to make sure the one singular idea in this bloated request is addressed. The "closeme" example is missing one last component in that customer replies don't trigger the mail/inbox routing rules. Right now we DO have body parsing which will pick up phrases on a per-line basis, but that only affects NEW INCOMING tickets. Having the replies picked up by the mail filters will finally make your request possible.

Therefore specifically watch:

CHD-1352
[Inbox Filters] Evaluate and take action on customer replies

to see if and when we make progress. Either way I think that "fix" will be enough to close both issues as resolved once and for all.

Thank you for keeping us updated. Really looking forward to this update.

Best Wishes,
Jim

Hi,
Will this be possibly soon, as it's working in version 3?

"The one longstanding use case is still not possible, where a customer reply of "closeme" in the message body will not automatically close an open ticket."


Thanks,
Jim

Hi Jeff,
Did we close this entirely or is it still on the project list?

Alternately, is there some way to hard code it to close tickets by watching for a single word, like "closeme," in body of follow up tickets?

If that is all that can be done (filtering to closed for single or groups of words) I guess we can live with that.

Thanks for continuing to follow this after so many years.

Best Wishes,
Jim

Yes, yes, yes.
Thank you for keeping up on this. We are still stuck at version3. :(

Best Wishes,
Jim

Any chance this issue from 2008 will make it into version 5.1?

Really tired of having to use version 3 still. :(

Thanks,
Jim

Hi,
I was excited to see the update.

I've been waiting 2 years for this.

What does Sea of 1000 Wishes mean?


And still having to use version 3.0 because of the latest versions shortcomings.

Thanks,
Jim

Any progress on this in the past 3 years?

I'm still stuck at version 3.0 due to this missing feature in 4 and 5.

-Jim

This can be handled with the Virtual Attendant functionality in 5.4

Took 3 years, but it's done!
Thanks for working this and getting it into 5.5.
Best Wishes,
Jim
TVCNet