How to stop Email Client emails auto-sending to CC

Community Alums · ‎06-22-2017

Does anyone know how to stop Email Client emails created from Incidents automatically adding the sender to CC?

After enabling the Email Client (in this case for the incident table by adding the email_client attribute email_client=true to attributes), emails can be sent via incidents. The Email Client Templates for these emails can be viewed by going to System Policy | Email | Client Templates which lists the following email types:

However, the code within these emails contain nothing that relate to the CC of the email. Can anybody help?

tony_barratt · ‎06-22-2017

Hi Kevin,

Yep you, and Chuck, are right. It is a bug - PRB753659

Known issue too.

ServiceNow KB: Using the Email Client function adds the user to the CC field and they cannot be remo...

With a workaround mentioned in the KB

Create a new email client template with empty BCC/CC field for the relevant table.

The following example illustrates a client template.

Go to sys_email_client_template.list in the filter navigator.
Specify the following values in the form:Name = "incident email client"
Table = "incident"
To = "${caller_id.email}"
Subject = "$(number) - ${short_description}"Once you have the fix, you can safely delete the client template.

Best Regards

Tony

View solution in original post

Chuck Tomasi · ‎06-22-2017

Hi Kevin,

You learn more about configuring the Email client (and specify a Cc address - or blank) here

Customize the email client

Community Alums · ‎06-22-2017

Thanks for replying Chuck,

I've seen this document and it says that in order to edit the default value, you should create a new email template. However for all the email templates that exist in the aforementioned section, the CC field is blank in all:

tony_barratt · ‎06-22-2017

Hi Kevin,

My guess is you could create an email template on the incident table with an empty field for cc and that would override the default behavior you are seeing.

Best Regards

Tony

Community Alums · ‎06-22-2017

Already tried that Anthony, see my reply to Chuck. It looks as if the code is defined elsewhere in the system, possibly in an area I don't have access to.