ELOG Forum

Demo Discussion

Forum Config Examples Contributions Vulnerabilities

Discussion forum about ELOG, Page 114 of 238

Not logged in

Find | Login | Help

New entries since:

Thu Jan 1 01:00:00 1970

Full | Summary | Threaded | Collapse | Expand

1899 Entries

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 113, 114, 115 ... 236, 237, 238 Next

How to control table width in listing , posted by Rex Tayloe on Thu Apr 22 20:02:46 2010

Greetings,

In table list mode, I would like to control how much width is given to "subject" column (my attribute). Can't find any method to control in config file. Problem is that the subject is often quite long and jammed into a small width, when the text is often empty and has more width than needed.

Thanks,

Can other pages hide behind elog user authentication?, posted by Jason St. John on Sat Apr 17 01:06:58 2010

Hello,

The elog security suits me just fine: the content is not available unless users have logged in, and as administrator I have complete control over who that is and what their privileges are. I can easily share somewhat sensitive notes, plots, and findings without making them completely open to the world.

I have a project which generates html pages, which I'm also not really supposed to make public to the world. I'd rather not resort to attaching them to elog entries.

Could the elog security be extended to control access to other files I put on the server?

Thanks,

-jmsj

Re: Can other pages hide behind elog user authentication?, posted by Stefan Ritt on Mon Apr 19 08:55:19 2010

Jason St. John wrote:

Hello,

I have a project which generates html pages, which I'm also not really supposed to make public to the world. I'd rather not resort to attaching them to elog entries.

Could the elog security be extended to control access to other files I put on the server?

Thanks,

-jmsj

If you don't want to make elog attachments, don't use elog at all. Just use a simple web server like Apache. Most web servers have some mean to protect certain web pages with passwords etc.

Active Directory authentication, posted by Alan Grant on Mon Mar 29 06:05:08 2010

Found a thread from 2004 ("External authentication") asking about the possibility of tying that in with ELog and answer was "Not yet". With time past, any chance this is now possible? I didn't see any more info on that since.

I'd like to explore using AD to set up/manage groups for ELog authentication. Alternatively, is there currently another way with ELog to manage groups?

Regards.

Re: Active Directory authentication, posted by Stefan Ritt on Thu Apr 15 13:16:25 2010

Alan Grant wrote:

I'd like to explore using AD to set up/manage groups for ELog authentication. Alternatively, is there currently another way with ELog to manage groups?

Regards.

External authentication is still on the list. But I'm not sure what is the best way: LDAP, PAM, Kerberos. Should work under windows and linux. Unfortunately I won't have time in the next few months to implement that, but it stays high on my todo list.

"No SMTP host defined in [global] section of configuration file" error, posted by Pedro Gil de Araújo Gordo on Wed Apr 14 12:55:38 2010

When I upload a message with a attachment (and also without an attachment) I get this message:

"No SMTP host defined in [global] section of configuration file"

However the file and the text have been uploaded. So why does it gives me this message, and how do I work this out?

Best Regards

Tirwit

Re: "No SMTP host defined in [global] section of configuration file" error, posted by Stefan Ritt on Wed Apr 14 13:03:37 2010

Pedro Gil de Araújo Gordo wrote:

When I upload a message with a attachment (and also without an attachment) I get this message:

"No SMTP host defined in [global] section of configuration file"

However the file and the text have been uploaded. So why does it gives me this message, and how do I work this out?

Best Regards

Tirwit

This error comes if you have configured email notifications, and no SMTP host defined in the configuration file. Elog has to contact your SMTP server to send any email. Read the email notification paragraph in the documentation.

Submit Buton, posted by Gary Wilcox on Thu Apr 8 18:06:25 2010

When entering data for a new log entry some folks always type in an attribute and then the "Enter" key which automatically

submits the entry. Is there a way to prevent this so the only way a new entry is submitted is with the Submit button. Also

is there a way to setup the main text box as a required attribute?

Thanks

Gary

Re: Submit Buton, posted by Stefan Ritt on Tue Apr 13 13:18:15 2010

Gary Wilcox wrote:

When entering data for a new log entry some folks always type in an attribute and then the "Enter" key which automatically

submits the entry. Is there a way to prevent this so the only way a new entry is submitted is with the Submit button. Also

is there a way to setup the main text box as a required attribute?

This is unfortunately a limitation of HTML forms. If anybody know a way around that, I'm happy to implement it.

Attach multiple (many!) files at one time, posted by Eric Feng on Sun Mar 21 19:03:52 2010

Hi,

Is it possible to attach multiple files at one time? Right now I have to attach each individually, click submit, then confirm, then re-select the next file...

This is a pain if one is attaching many files as I often want to do. It would be nice to be able to select groups of files together using Ctrl and/or Shift, and even to attach a whole directory recursively.

I looked through previous threads but did not find this question asked there.

Thanks,

Eric

Re: Attach multiple (many!) files at one time, posted by Stefan Ritt on Mon Mar 22 08:58:47 2010

Eric Feng wrote:

Hi,

Is it possible to attach multiple files at one time? Right now I have to attach each individually, click submit, then confirm, then re-select the next file...

I looked through previous threads but did not find this question asked there.

Thanks,

Eric

This is a well known problem, but unfortunately it's a limitation of HTML and how web browsers work. If it would be easy to attach whole directories to HTML forms, it would be too easy to steal important files from your computer. So the HTML designers decided that each file hast to be confirmed manually, and that's why you have to click so often. There is no way ELOG could bypass this scheme.

Re: Attach multiple (many!) files at one time, posted by Eric Feng on Tue Apr 6 00:45:10 2010

Stefan Ritt wrote:

Eric Feng wrote:

Hi,

Is it possible to attach multiple files at one time? Right now I have to attach each individually, click submit, then confirm, then re-select the next file...

I looked through previous threads but did not find this question asked there.

Thanks,

Eric

Hi Stefan,

Okay thanks for letting me know. That is unfortunate now.

Is there no way also to select multiple files with shift or ctrl? Is there any usable workaround that you can see?

Thanks,

Eric

Fail to connect to SMTP server on WinXP but works on Win2K, posted by David Spindler on Sat Mar 6 19:59:58 2010

Re: Fail to connect to SMTP server on WinXP but works on Win2K, posted by David Spindler on Sat Mar 6 20:06:24 2010

Fantastic. I forgot the icon and when I resent nothing was left.

Here goes again!

I have been running Elog for years on a Win2K machine with no email problems. I have been forced to move it to a WinXP machine and I always get this message under WinXP: "Error sending Email via "netsvr10.prod.company.com": Cannot connect to server"

I noticed this a long time ago but was not concerned until I wqas forced to use WinXP. We have years of data in the Elog and to lose the use of it would hinder our operation a lot.

Here is an entry from the elog.log file when it worked under Win2K:

28-Oct-2009 18:28:38 [609144@199.82.127.9] {Generals} NEW entry #0
28-Oct-2009 18:28:38 [609144@199.82.127.9] {Generals} Email from <christophermeyer@fedex.com> to david.spindler@company.com, SMTP host smtp.mail.company.com
28-Oct-2009 18:28:42 [609144@199.82.127.9] {Generals} 220 netsvr10.prod.company.com -- Server ESMTP (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-8.01 (built Dec 16 2008; 32bit))

Here is an entry from today's elog.log under WinXP that does not work.

06-Mar-2010 11:48:23 [117361@127.0.0.1] {Gbld} NEW entry #0
06-Mar-2010 11:48:23 [117361@127.0.0.1] {Gbld} Email from <david.spindler@company.com> to david.spindler@company.com, SMTP host smtp.mail.company.com
06-Mar-2010 11:48:23 [117361@127.0.0.1] {Gbld} READ entry #1612

We use an SMTP server without authentication.

Re: Fail to connect to SMTP server on WinXP but works on Win2K, posted by David Spindler on Sat Mar 6 20:16:52 2010

David Spindler wrote:

Fantastic. I forgot the icon and when I resent nothing was left.

Here goes again!

I noticed this a long time ago but was not concerned until I wqas forced to use WinXP. We have years of data in the Elog and to lose the use of it would hinder our operation a lot.

Here is an entry from the elog.log file when it worked under Win2K:

Here is an entry from today's elog.log under WinXP that does not work.

06-Mar-2010 11:48:23 [117361@127.0.0.1] {Gbld} NEW entry #0
06-Mar-2010 11:48:23 [117361@127.0.0.1] {Gbld} Email from <david.spindler@company.com> to david.spindler@company.com, SMTP host smtp.mail.company.com
06-Mar-2010 11:48:23 [117361@127.0.0.1] {Gbld} READ entry #1612

We use an SMTP server without authentication.

I picked a bad example with an IP address of 127.0.0.1, but it is the same as a valid IP address such as the working entries above or the entry below.

06-Mar-2010 10:31:43 [117361@199.81.166.149] {Gbld} READ entry #1691
06-Mar-2010 10:39:10 [117361@199.81.166.149] {Gbld} NEW entry #0
06-Mar-2010 10:39:11 [117361@199.81.166.149] {Gbld} Email from <david.spindler@company.com> to david.spindler@company.com, SMTP host smtp.mail.company.com

Re: Fail to connect to SMTP server on WinXP but works on Win2K, posted by Stefan Ritt on Thu Mar 11 15:47:21 2010

David Spindler wrote:

Fantastic. I forgot the icon and when I resent nothing was left.

Here goes again!

I noticed this a long time ago but was not concerned until I wqas forced to use WinXP. We have years of data in the Elog and to lose the use of it would hinder our operation a lot.

Here is an entry from the elog.log file when it worked under Win2K:

Here is an entry from today's elog.log under WinXP that does not work.

We use an SMTP server without authentication.

I picked a bad example with an IP address of 127.0.0.1, but it is the same as a valid IP address such as the working entries above or the entry below.

The only idea I have is that your Windows firewall prevents outgoing network traffic on port 25 (SMTP). You should put an exception into the firewall rule. You can try that by opening a DOS box and entering

telnet smtp.mail.company.com 25

if you see a reply, the traffic is allowed. If it blocks, the firewall prevents this kind of traffic.

Re: Fail to connect to SMTP server on WinXP but works on Win2K, posted by David Spindler on Fri Mar 12 19:30:53 2010

Stefan Ritt wrote:

David Spindler wrote:

Fantastic. I forgot the icon and when I resent nothing was left.

Here goes again!

I noticed this a long time ago but was not concerned until I wqas forced to use WinXP. We have years of data in the Elog and to lose the use of it would hinder our operation a lot.

Here is an entry from the elog.log file when it worked under Win2K:

Here is an entry from today's elog.log under WinXP that does not work.

We use an SMTP server without authentication.

I picked a bad example with an IP address of 127.0.0.1, but it is the same as a valid IP address such as the working entries above or the entry below.

telnet smtp.mail.company.com 25

if you see a reply, the traffic is allowed. If it blocks, the firewall prevents this kind of traffic.

I have tried setting up a VM (VMWare) with W2K and testing it out on both a W2K and WXP host. In both cases the Elog successfully sends emails. I don't know if this helps, or not.

Re: Fail to connect to SMTP server on WinXP but works on Win2K, posted by David Spindler on Wed Mar 17 21:34:53 2010

David Spindler wrote:

Stefan Ritt wrote:

David Spindler wrote:

Fantastic. I forgot the icon and when I resent nothing was left.

Here goes again!

I noticed this a long time ago but was not concerned until I wqas forced to use WinXP. We have years of data in the Elog and to lose the use of it would hinder our operation a lot.

Here is an entry from the elog.log file when it worked under Win2K:

Here is an entry from today's elog.log under WinXP that does not work.

We use an SMTP server without authentication.

I picked a bad example with an IP address of 127.0.0.1, but it is the same as a valid IP address such as the working entries above or the entry below.

telnet smtp.mail.company.com 25

if you see a reply, the traffic is allowed. If it blocks, the firewall prevents this kind of traffic.

I have tried setting up a VM (VMWare) with W2K and testing it out on both a W2K and WXP host. In both cases the Elog successfully sends emails. I don't know if this helps, or not.

telnet smtp.mail.company.com 25

if you see a reply, the traffic is allowed. If it blocks, the firewall prevents this kind of traffic.

My apologies. I just realized that my first answer to you was lost. I turned the firewall completely off with no luck. I also tried the telnet and it worked. So, it does not appear to be the firewall. I tried the VM's afterwards. Another puzzle is that the Win2K VM works on a WinXP host. It seems like it is only the WinXP elog that fails. I have tried to obtain some our company's IT help with no luck.

Re: Fail to connect to SMTP server on WinXP but works on Win2K, posted by soren poulsen on Wed Mar 17 22:39:59 2010

David Spindler wrote:

Stefan Ritt wrote:

David Spindler wrote:

Fantastic. I forgot the icon and when I resent nothing was left.

Here goes again!

I noticed this a long time ago but was not concerned until I wqas forced to use WinXP. We have years of data in the Elog and to lose the use of it would hinder our operation a lot.

Here is an entry from the elog.log file when it worked under Win2K:

Here is an entry from today's elog.log under WinXP that does not work.

We use an SMTP server without authentication.

I picked a bad example with an IP address of 127.0.0.1, but it is the same as a valid IP address such as the working entries above or the entry below.

telnet smtp.mail.company.com 25

if you see a reply, the traffic is allowed. If it blocks, the firewall prevents this kind of traffic.

I have tried setting up a VM (VMWare) with W2K and testing it out on both a W2K and WXP host. In both cases the Elog successfully sends emails. I don't know if this helps, or not.

telnet smtp.mail.company.com 25

if you see a reply, the traffic is allowed. If it blocks, the firewall prevents this kind of traffic.

Just an idea: could you try specifying an IP address for your SMTP server instead of smtp.mail.company.com ?

I would also try to make a manual SMTP session to see if that works.

Otherwise, next step would be to create a VM installed with Wireshark to record the network traffic that ELOG generates when it makes the SMTP connection.

Soren

Re: Fail to connect to SMTP server on WinXP but works on Win2K, posted by David Spindler on Thu Mar 18 20:08:03 2010

soren poulsen wrote:

David Spindler wrote:

Stefan Ritt wrote:

David Spindler wrote:

Fantastic. I forgot the icon and when I resent nothing was left.

Here goes again!

I noticed this a long time ago but was not concerned until I wqas forced to use WinXP. We have years of data in the Elog and to lose the use of it would hinder our operation a lot.

Here is an entry from the elog.log file when it worked under Win2K:

Here is an entry from today's elog.log under WinXP that does not work.

We use an SMTP server without authentication.

I picked a bad example with an IP address of 127.0.0.1, but it is the same as a valid IP address such as the working entries above or the entry below.

telnet smtp.mail.company.com 25

if you see a reply, the traffic is allowed. If it blocks, the firewall prevents this kind of traffic.

I have tried setting up a VM (VMWare) with W2K and testing it out on both a W2K and WXP host. In both cases the Elog successfully sends emails. I don't know if this helps, or not.

telnet smtp.mail.company.com 25

if you see a reply, the traffic is allowed. If it blocks, the firewall prevents this kind of traffic.

Just an idea: could you try specifying an IP address for your SMTP server instead of smtp.mail.company.com ?

I would also try to make a manual SMTP session to see if that works.

Otherwise, next step would be to create a VM installed with Wireshark to record the network traffic that ELOG generates when it makes the SMTP connection.

Soren

Thanks, I will give it a try.

Re: Fail to connect to SMTP server on WinXP but works on Win2K, posted by David Spindler on Thu Mar 18 20:34:41 2010

David Spindler wrote:

soren poulsen wrote:

David Spindler wrote:

Stefan Ritt wrote:

David Spindler wrote:

Fantastic. I forgot the icon and when I resent nothing was left.

Here goes again!

I noticed this a long time ago but was not concerned until I wqas forced to use WinXP. We have years of data in the Elog and to lose the use of it would hinder our operation a lot.

Here is an entry from the elog.log file when it worked under Win2K:

Here is an entry from today's elog.log under WinXP that does not work.

We use an SMTP server without authentication.

I picked a bad example with an IP address of 127.0.0.1, but it is the same as a valid IP address such as the working entries above or the entry below.

telnet smtp.mail.company.com 25

if you see a reply, the traffic is allowed. If it blocks, the firewall prevents this kind of traffic.

I have tried setting up a VM (VMWare) with W2K and testing it out on both a W2K and WXP host. In both cases the Elog successfully sends emails. I don't know if this helps, or not.

telnet smtp.mail.company.com 25

if you see a reply, the traffic is allowed. If it blocks, the firewall prevents this kind of traffic.

Just an idea: could you try specifying an IP address for your SMTP server instead of smtp.mail.company.com ?

I would also try to make a manual SMTP session to see if that works.

Otherwise, next step would be to create a VM installed with Wireshark to record the network traffic that ELOG generates when it makes the SMTP connection.

Soren

Thanks, I will give it a try.

I cannot send an email from elog using an IP address.

I can send an email manually through SMTP.

I will have to locate a copy of wireshark and set up a VM. I cannot access any site that has it from here.

Re: Fail to connect to SMTP server on WinXP but works on Win2K, posted by soren poulsen on Fri Mar 19 13:45:13 2010

David Spindler wrote:

soren poulsen wrote:

David Spindler wrote:

Stefan Ritt wrote:

David Spindler wrote:

Fantastic. I forgot the icon and when I resent nothing was left.

Here goes again!

I noticed this a long time ago but was not concerned until I wqas forced to use WinXP. We have years of data in the Elog and to lose the use of it would hinder our operation a lot.

Here is an entry from the elog.log file when it worked under Win2K:

Here is an entry from today's elog.log under WinXP that does not work.

We use an SMTP server without authentication.

I picked a bad example with an IP address of 127.0.0.1, but it is the same as a valid IP address such as the working entries above or the entry below.

telnet smtp.mail.company.com 25

if you see a reply, the traffic is allowed. If it blocks, the firewall prevents this kind of traffic.

I have tried setting up a VM (VMWare) with W2K and testing it out on both a W2K and WXP host. In both cases the Elog successfully sends emails. I don't know if this helps, or not.

telnet smtp.mail.company.com 25

if you see a reply, the traffic is allowed. If it blocks, the firewall prevents this kind of traffic.

Just an idea: could you try specifying an IP address for your SMTP server instead of smtp.mail.company.com ?

I would also try to make a manual SMTP session to see if that works.

Otherwise, next step would be to create a VM installed with Wireshark to record the network traffic that ELOG generates when it makes the SMTP connection.

Soren

Thanks, I will give it a try.

I cannot send an email from elog using an IP address.

I can send an email manually through SMTP.

I will have to locate a copy of wireshark and set up a VM. I cannot access any site that has it from here.

We will get there. What is the output of "ipconfig /all" of the Win2K and WinXP machines respectively ?

Maxbe the DNS suffix is missing on XP ?

Soren

Re: Fail to connect to SMTP server on WinXP but works on Win2K, posted by David Spindler on Fri Mar 19 15:56:38 2010

soren poulsen wrote:

David Spindler wrote:

soren poulsen wrote:

David Spindler wrote:

Stefan Ritt wrote:

David Spindler wrote:

Fantastic. I forgot the icon and when I resent nothing was left.

Here goes again!

I noticed this a long time ago but was not concerned until I wqas forced to use WinXP. We have years of data in the Elog and to lose the use of it would hinder our operation a lot.

Here is an entry from the elog.log file when it worked under Win2K:

Here is an entry from today's elog.log under WinXP that does not work.

We use an SMTP server without authentication.

I picked a bad example with an IP address of 127.0.0.1, but it is the same as a valid IP address such as the working entries above or the entry below.

telnet smtp.mail.company.com 25

if you see a reply, the traffic is allowed. If it blocks, the firewall prevents this kind of traffic.

I have tried setting up a VM (VMWare) with W2K and testing it out on both a W2K and WXP host. In both cases the Elog successfully sends emails. I don't know if this helps, or not.

telnet smtp.mail.company.com 25

if you see a reply, the traffic is allowed. If it blocks, the firewall prevents this kind of traffic.

Just an idea: could you try specifying an IP address for your SMTP server instead of smtp.mail.company.com ?

I would also try to make a manual SMTP session to see if that works.

Otherwise, next step would be to create a VM installed with Wireshark to record the network traffic that ELOG generates when it makes the SMTP connection.

Soren

Thanks, I will give it a try.

I cannot send an email from elog using an IP address.

I can send an email manually through SMTP.

I will have to locate a copy of wireshark and set up a VM. I cannot access any site that has it from here.

We will get there. What is the output of "ipconfig /all" of the Win2K and WinXP machines respectively ?

Maxbe the DNS suffix is missing on XP ?

Soren

Here are the IPCONFIG /ALL pastes:

#1>>>WinXP not running VM:

ipconfig /all

Windows IP Configuration

        Host Name . . . . . . . . . . . . : AOC-117361-W1
        Primary Dns Suffix . . . . . . . : corp.ds.companyname.com
        Node Type . . . . . . . . . . . . : Unknown
        IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . . . : No
        WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . . . : No
        DNS Suffix Search List. . . . . . : corp.ds.companyname.com
                                            ds.companyname.com
                                            companyname.com

Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection:

        Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
        Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Broadcom NetXtreme 57xx Gigabit Cont
roller
        Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-11-43-18-D3-7B
        Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : ##9.81.166.149
        Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
        Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : ##9.81.166.1
        DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : ##9.81.11.53
                                            ##9.81.7.54

************************************************************************
#2>>>VM Win2K fail to send emails:
ipconfig /All

Windows 2000 IP Configuration

        Host Name . . . . . . . . . . . . : jc_vm_w2k
        Primary DNS Suffix . . . . . . . :
        Node Type . . . . . . . . . . . . : Broadcast
        IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . . . : No
        WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . . . : No
        DNS Suffix Search List. . . . . . : corp.ds.companyname.com

Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection 2:

        Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : corp.ds.companyname.com
        Description . . . . . . . . . . . : VMware Accelerated AMD PCNet Adapter

        Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-0C-29-28-24-8F
        DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes
        Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : ##9.81.163.127
        Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
        Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : ##9.81.163.1
        DHCP Server . . . . . . . . . . . : ##6.18.71.214
        DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : ##9.81.10.150
                                            ##6.18.71.3
                                            ##9.82.243.70
        Lease Obtained. . . . . . . . . . : Friday, March 19, 2010 8:24:21 AM
        Lease Expires . . . . . . . . . . : Friday, March 19, 2010 12:24:21 PM

*************************************************************************
#3>>>VM Win2K with successful emails:
C:\>ipconfig /all

Windows 2000 IP Configuration

        Host Name . . . . . . . . . . . . : win2k-vm
        Primary DNS Suffix . . . . . . . :
        Node Type . . . . . . . . . . . . : Broadcast
        IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . . . : No
        WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . . . : No
        DNS Suffix Search List. . . . . . : corp.ds.companyname.com

Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection:

        Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : corp.ds.companyname.com
        Description . . . . . . . . . . . : VMware Accelerated AMD PCNet Adapter

        Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-0C-29-1A-40-F3
        DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes
        Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : ##9.81.163.127
        Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
        Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : ##9.81.163.1
        DHCP Server . . . . . . . . . . . : ##6.18.71.214
        DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : ##9.81.10.150
                                            ##6.18.71.3
                                            ##9.82.243.70
        Lease Obtained. . . . . . . . . . : Friday, March 19, 2010 8:32:26 AM
        Lease Expires . . . . . . . . . . : Friday, March 19, 2010 12:32:26 PM

#1 was the output from the WinXP PC running Elog with no successful emails.

#2 was the output from the Win2K VM running on the #1 PC, also with no successful emails.

#3 was the output from another Win2K VM running on the #1 PC that successfully emails.

The difference between the 2 VM's is that #2 has the latest VMWare tools installed and #3 does not. This is running under VMWare Player 3.

The DNS suffix is present on the host PC but neither of the VM's, yet one of the VM's works.

BTW, thanks for your time in examining this issue.

Re: Fail to connect to SMTP server on WinXP but works on Win2K, posted by David Spindler on Fri Mar 19 20:18:17 2010

David Spindler wrote:

soren poulsen wrote:

David Spindler wrote:

soren poulsen wrote:

David Spindler wrote:

Stefan Ritt wrote:

David Spindler wrote:

Fantastic. I forgot the icon and when I resent nothing was left.

Here goes again!

I noticed this a long time ago but was not concerned until I wqas forced to use WinXP. We have years of data in the Elog and to lose the use of it would hinder our operation a lot.

Here is an entry from the elog.log file when it worked under Win2K:

Here is an entry from today's elog.log under WinXP that does not work.

We use an SMTP server without authentication.

I picked a bad example with an IP address of 127.0.0.1, but it is the same as a valid IP address such as the working entries above or the entry below.

telnet smtp.mail.company.com 25

if you see a reply, the traffic is allowed. If it blocks, the firewall prevents this kind of traffic.

I have tried setting up a VM (VMWare) with W2K and testing it out on both a W2K and WXP host. In both cases the Elog successfully sends emails. I don't know if this helps, or not.

telnet smtp.mail.company.com 25

if you see a reply, the traffic is allowed. If it blocks, the firewall prevents this kind of traffic.

Just an idea: could you try specifying an IP address for your SMTP server instead of smtp.mail.company.com ?

I would also try to make a manual SMTP session to see if that works.

Otherwise, next step would be to create a VM installed with Wireshark to record the network traffic that ELOG generates when it makes the SMTP connection.

Soren

Thanks, I will give it a try.

I cannot send an email from elog using an IP address.

I can send an email manually through SMTP.

I will have to locate a copy of wireshark and set up a VM. I cannot access any site that has it from here.

We will get there. What is the output of "ipconfig /all" of the Win2K and WinXP machines respectively ?

Maxbe the DNS suffix is missing on XP ?

Soren

Here are the IPCONFIG /ALL pastes:

#1 was the output from the WinXP PC running Elog with no successful emails.

#2 was the output from the Win2K VM running on the #1 PC, also with no successful emails.

#3 was the output from another Win2K VM running on the #1 PC that successfully emails.

The difference between the 2 VM's is that #2 has the latest VMWare tools installed and #3 does not. This is running under VMWare Player 3.

The DNS suffix is present on the host PC but neither of the VM's, yet one of the VM's works.

BTW, thanks for your time in examining this issue.

BINGO!!

I found the trouble. I assumed it was WinXP but I did not notice that the Win2K PCs I used hadSymantec Corporate AV while the WinXP PCs had McAfee AV. McAfee was the culprit.

Thanks very much for all of your help!!!

Re: Fail to connect to SMTP server on WinXP but works on Win2K, posted by David Spindler on Fri Mar 19 20:26:44 2010

David Spindler wrote:

soren poulsen wrote:

David Spindler wrote:

soren poulsen wrote:

David Spindler wrote:

Stefan Ritt wrote:

David Spindler wrote:

Fantastic. I forgot the icon and when I resent nothing was left.

Here goes again!

I noticed this a long time ago but was not concerned until I wqas forced to use WinXP. We have years of data in the Elog and to lose the use of it would hinder our operation a lot.

Here is an entry from the elog.log file when it worked under Win2K:

Here is an entry from today's elog.log under WinXP that does not work.

We use an SMTP server without authentication.

I picked a bad example with an IP address of 127.0.0.1, but it is the same as a valid IP address such as the working entries above or the entry below.

telnet smtp.mail.company.com 25

if you see a reply, the traffic is allowed. If it blocks, the firewall prevents this kind of traffic.

I have tried setting up a VM (VMWare) with W2K and testing it out on both a W2K and WXP host. In both cases the Elog successfully sends emails. I don't know if this helps, or not.

telnet smtp.mail.company.com 25

if you see a reply, the traffic is allowed. If it blocks, the firewall prevents this kind of traffic.

Just an idea: could you try specifying an IP address for your SMTP server instead of smtp.mail.company.com ?

I would also try to make a manual SMTP session to see if that works.

Otherwise, next step would be to create a VM installed with Wireshark to record the network traffic that ELOG generates when it makes the SMTP connection.

Soren

Thanks, I will give it a try.

I cannot send an email from elog using an IP address.

I can send an email manually through SMTP.

I will have to locate a copy of wireshark and set up a VM. I cannot access any site that has it from here.

We will get there. What is the output of "ipconfig /all" of the Win2K and WinXP machines respectively ?

Maxbe the DNS suffix is missing on XP ?

Soren

Here are the IPCONFIG /ALL pastes:

#1 was the output from the WinXP PC running Elog with no successful emails.

#2 was the output from the Win2K VM running on the #1 PC, also with no successful emails.

#3 was the output from another Win2K VM running on the #1 PC that successfully emails.

The difference between the 2 VM's is that #2 has the latest VMWare tools installed and #3 does not. This is running under VMWare Player 3.

The DNS suffix is present on the host PC but neither of the VM's, yet one of the VM's works.

BTW, thanks for your time in examining this issue.

BINGO!!

I found the trouble. I assumed it was WinXP but I did not notice that the Win2K PCs I used hadSymantec Corporate AV while the WinXP PCs had McAfee AV. McAfee was the culprit.

Thanks very much for all of your help!!!

A little more info in case anybody else runs into this. McAfee defaults to blocking mass mailing worms, or at least our IT department has it doing so. Turn this off and the email from Elog works.

Thread view problem in searches, posted by soren poulsen on Tue Mar 2 14:21:46 2010

Hi,

When I upgrade from build 2278 to 2282 the thread view changes when performing searches: The thread children are not indented and there are no "thread icons" in the search list (e.g. like the read right arrow for replies).

On the forum site I also note that the thread view is not indented when performing searches.

Does anyone have an idea ?

Soren

Re: Thread view problem in searches, posted by soren poulsen on Sat Mar 6 20:53:25 2010

soren poulsen wrote:

Hi,

On the forum site I also note that the thread view is not indented when performing searches.

Does anyone have an idea ?

Soren

This seems to be a bug. I reproduced it with a different browser (Opera) with the default ELOG configuration. When I do Find and select Display Threads I have the message icons but the layout is not correct. Also, all message icons are of the "reply" type even if they are new threads.

This concerns only the latest build 2282.

Soren

Re: Thread view problem in searches, posted by Stefan Ritt on Thu Mar 11 15:44:01 2010

soren poulsen wrote:

Hi,

On the forum site I also note that the thread view is not indented when performing searches.

Does anyone have an idea ?

Soren

This concerns only the latest build 2282.

Soren

That's not a bug, that's a feature

But honestly, this feature was requested recently and implemented. See https://midas.psi.ch/elogs/Forum/66670. So when searching, the thread organization is broken up and messages are treated independently. If you want to see the thread for a certain entry in you search result page, click on that entry and you will see the full thread above the entry.

Re: Thread view problem in searches, posted by soren poulsen on Sun Mar 14 21:04:44 2010

Stefan Ritt wrote:

soren poulsen wrote:

Hi,

On the forum site I also note that the thread view is not indented when performing searches.

Does anyone have an idea ?

Soren

This concerns only the latest build 2282.

Soren

That's not a bug, that's a feature

That sounds fine but I think there is a problem with rendering under Opera. I enclose a screen shot: There is too much white space in the lines, it seems $

The problem only appears in Find

Soren

Re: Thread view problem in searches, posted by Stefan Ritt on Mon Mar 15 08:23:45 2010

soren poulsen wrote:

That sounds fine but I think there is a problem with rendering under Opera. I enclose a screen shot: There is too much white space in the lines, it seems $

The problem only appears in Find

I just tried myself with V10.50, and things work fine, even in the find page:

Can you try on the forum, just to check if it's specific to your configuration?

Re: Thread view problem in searches, posted by soren poulsen on Mon Mar 15 18:35:26 2010

Stefan Ritt wrote:

soren poulsen wrote:

That sounds fine but I think there is a problem with rendering under Opera. I enclose a screen shot: There is too much white space in the lines, it seems $

The problem only appears in Find

I just tried myself with V10.50, and things work fine, even in the find page:

Can you try on the forum, just to check if it's specific to your configuration?

Thanks. The Forum is fine. The problem is - apparently - specific to my installation. The white space origins in long sequences of "&nbsp" (repeated); in the lines in Find.

Let me re-install with the latest version and see if I can solve it like that.

Soren

Re: Thread view problem in searches, posted by soren poulsen on Mon Mar 15 18:58:06 2010

soren poulsen wrote:

Stefan Ritt wrote:

soren poulsen wrote:

That sounds fine but I think there is a problem with rendering under Opera. I enclose a screen shot: There is too much white space in the lines, it seems $

The problem only appears in Find

I just tried myself with V10.50, and things work fine, even in the find page:

Can you try on the forum, just to check if it's specific to your configuration?

Thanks. The Forum is fine. The problem is - apparently - specific to my installation. The white space origins in long sequences of "&nbsp" (repeated); in the lines in Find.

Let me re-install with the latest version and see if I can solve it like that.

Soren

I have re-installed the latest, fastest, smartest, brightest version. And it all works perfectly! Thanks a lot for your help.

Soren

Re: Thread view problem in searches, posted by soren poulsen on Tue Mar 16 11:58:55 2010

soren poulsen wrote:

Stefan Ritt wrote:

soren poulsen wrote:

That sounds fine but I think there is a problem with rendering under Opera. I enclose a screen shot: There is too much white space in the lines, it seems $

The problem only appears in Find

I just tried myself with V10.50, and things work fine, even in the find page:

Can you try on the forum, just to check if it's specific to your configuration?

Thanks. The Forum is fine. The problem is - apparently - specific to my installation. The white space origins in long sequences of "&nbsp" (repeated); in the lines in Find.

Let me re-install with the latest version and see if I can solve it like that.

Soren

I have re-installed the latest, fastest, smartest, brightest version. And it all works perfectly! Thanks a lot for your help.

Soren

Everything is fine. But my users do not like that the threads are broken into individual entries and not shown as full threads as before. So I am stuck with the "old" version. This is probably asking for too much but would it be difficult to have a flag to specify if you want to benefit from the new behaviour or keep pre-2282 behaviour (with its inconvenience which led to the presentation change). It could even be a compile tag flag, if it just me (well, my users) who is asking for this.

Soren

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 113, 114, 115 ... 236, 237, 238 Next

ELOG V3.1.5-3fb85fa6