- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎04-21-2016 06:37 AM
Problem we are trying to solve: We have vendors that use their own instances of ServiceNow. Sometimes they will send emails to our instance that originated from their instances of ServiceNow (With their instances watermark). We are seeing collisions whereby their watermarks are the same as a watermark on our instances. Thus the wrong records are being updated in our instance. I'm thinking I can simply change the watermark prefix in our instance from "MSG" to something more unique such as "ZZZ". Then when we receive an email from our vendors (that prefix with MSG), there will never be a watermark match unless the email was generated from our instance (desired). If I change the prefix in our instance, will that affect any of the outstanding messages and/or cause any problems? (: if the prefix is changed, does it affect only future emails or does it retro affect previously sent emails) thoughts?
Solved! Go to Solution.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎05-09-2016 11:26 AM
Hi Daniel,
The short answer to your question is, no, it won't impact existing watermarks. They are stored in the sys_watermark table so incoming messages sent out a week before you changed the prefix will still work (and are still at risk for what you mentioned above.)
Thanks for the use case. I'll bring that to our developers attention.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎04-13-2017 02:11 PM
Inbound email processing can match a reply by using the watermark, the reply email's 'In-Reply-To' header, or the record number. See https://docs.servicenow.com/bundle/istanbul-servicenow-platform/page/administer/notification/concept...
The current prefix defined in the 'sys_watermark' table is used to match the email content. So if your current custom watermark is "ABCD", and you receive an email containing a watermark 'Ref:XYZ012345', then that will not be recognized as a watermark when looking in the email body. However, you may not see any impact on email reply matching, because it is likely successfully locating the target record instead via one of the other methods.
If the other methods are unavailable - which is less frequent - your reply would not locate the target record via the watermark. (For instance, a bug in an email application could prevent the presence of the "In-Reply-To" header). Therefore it is possible under less frequent circumstances, that a reply containing the old prefix would not be correctly matched as a reply.
What to do to prevent this:
In Helsinki Patch 3 and later, or Istanbul or later, use the property, 'glide.email.prior_watermark_prefix' and specify your prior prefix there. This ensures that if an email arrives with a watermark, it will try to locate a watermark in the email content by either new or prior prefix. This will handle the admittedly infrequent situations described above and ensure your email is still seen as a reply, accurately locating the target record.
Once your watermark transition period is over, you can remove the property. The transition time is up to you - it just needs to be reasonably long enough so that you don't expect replies to be arriving with the older watermark prefix.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎04-25-2017 10:31 PM
I've heard conflicting information on this - contacted HI and they advised that the prior_watermark_prefix property was only used prior to Istanbul to treat PRB667700: ServiceNow KB: PRB667700: In custom watermark prefixes, inbound email actions not identifying waterm...
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎04-26-2017 10:47 AM
The property 'glide.email.prior_watermark_prefix' is certainly helpful as a workaround to PRB667700, as you noted. But it is incorrect to state that its only use is as a workaround to that PRB.
The express purpose of the property is to serve as a mechanism to help you transition from one watermark prefix to the next, and continues to be supported.
PRB667700 was fixed in Istanbul, Geneva Patch 8, and Helsinki Patch 3, so this helpful transition functionality should be available and functioning in those versions or later.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎04-26-2017 01:49 PM
Yeah that's what's confusing me - HI said that old watermark prefixes would still be used and that this property has no impact.
Will have to do some testing in a dev instance
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎04-21-2017 02:57 PM
Daniel,
We are glad you were able to take advantage of the ServiceNow Community to learn more and to get your questions answered. The Customer Experience Team is working hard to ensure that the Community experience is most optimal for our customers.
If you feel that your question was answered, we would greatly appreciate if you could mark the appropriate thread as "Correct Answer". This allows other customers to learn from your thread and improves the ServiceNow Community experience.
If you are viewing this from the Community inbox you will not see the correct answer button. If so, please review How to Mark Answers Correct From Inbox View.
Thanks!