Skip to main content
Question

Reply Recipient at Email Sending

  • July 15, 2026
  • 1 reply
  • 23 views

Forum|alt.badge.img

I want to Sent an Email via Command_Sys.Mail with an Reply Recipient.

 

Is there a way to do this or a solution with custumizations?

 

maybe in the Open Field where otherwise BCC: is in ?

 

Example:

 

Email Send by Test@test.com 

 

but when the user replies the reply will be send to reply@test.com

1 reply

PhillBronson
Hero (Customer)
Forum|alt.badge.img+13
  • Hero (Customer)
  • July 15, 2026

@THCNMUELLER it doesn’t look like Command_SYS.Mail exposes a Reply-To header, so you can't set one directly through the API. A workable pattern is to embed a mailto: link in the body pointing at the reply address. Most mail clients auto-link it, so when the recipient clicks, their client composes a fresh message to the intended inbox.

Rough pl/sql

DECLARE

   sender_    VARCHAR2(200) := 'IFSAPP';

   from_      VARCHAR2(200) := 'noreply@yourdomain.com';

   to_list_   VARCHAR2(200) := 'customer@example.com';

   reply_to_  VARCHAR2(100) := 'support@yourdomain.com';

   subject_   VARCHAR2(200) := 'Order Update';

   text_      CLOB;

   attach_    CLOB;

BEGIN

   text_ := q'[<html><head><style>a { text-decoration: underline; }</style></head><body>]'

         || q'[<p>Your order has been processed.</p>]'

         || q'[<div>To reply, click here: ]'

         || q'[<a href="mailto:]' || reply_to_

         || q'[?subject=RE: ]' || subject_

         || q'[">Reply</a></div>]'

         || q'[</body></html>]';

   Command_SYS.Mail(

      sender_  => sender_,

      from_    => from_,

      to_list_ => to_list_,

      subject_ => subject_,

      text_    => text_,

      attach_  => attach_

   );

END;

 

Note: be sure to use the CLOB signature, or the body will be rendered in plain text.

 

If you need actual header-level control, you might have to bypass Command_SYS.Mail and send through UTL_SMTP directly, where you can set Reply-To: in the MIME headers yourself. There are some setup and permissions prerequisites that need to be handled with this approach.  You would most likely lose the standard IFS application messages queues and retries. The first option is what I would lean towards in this case.