Can you post a picture here?

If i try to upload an image here, i got the error "Image Source URL Is Missing"...

can you help me further ?
Best regards,
Andrea

Yes, I can help with that: you've tried to put the picture into the text body. Try to make it a normal attachment, that'll work always.

> Boolean attributes were not displayed correctly in version 2.3.9.
> Patch is attached.

Yes, implemented, thank you.

> It seems that maximal number of attachments is about 20. When you try to add
> more, a new entry _is_ added to the logbook but the refernce to it is not
> added to the web page.

Uhhh, Mr. "monster of number of attachments" gave it's stroke! Well, we never 
had such large number of attachments so I forgot to put a waring in. The 
limit comes from 

#define MAX_ATTACHMENTS  20

in elogd.c which you can easily increase (as long as you have RAM!) and 
recompile.

> > It seems that maximal number of attachments is about 20. When you try to add
> > more, a new entry _is_ added to the logbook but the refernce to it is not
> > added to the web page.
> 
> Uhhh, Mr. "monster of number of attachments" gave it's stroke!

:)  I wanted to post a message with ~200 attachments.

>Well, we never 
> had such large number of attachments so I forgot to put a waring in. The 
> limit comes from 
> 
> #define MAX_ATTACHMENTS  20
> 
> in elogd.c which you can easily increase (as long as you have RAM!) and 
> recompile.

Actually my report was NOT about this limitation. You have it - it is fine.
The problem is that I add some 'zombies' or dead files to my logbook.

BTW is there a tool to check the 'integrity' of a logbook? That all
attachments are in place,  there are no dead files, etc. I perfectly
understand that it is not _highly_ desired or needed, but with the two last
problems (auto-removing of attached files and silent adding a new ones with
20+ attachments) I have doubts that our logbook in a good state. And we just
started to use it. And I am still so excited about it!!

> Actually my report was NOT about this limitation. You have it - it is fine.
> The problem is that I add some 'zombies' or dead files to my logbook.
> 
> BTW is there a tool to check the 'integrity' of a logbook? That all
> attachments are in place,  there are no dead files, etc. I perfectly
> understand that it is not _highly_ desired or needed, but with the two last
> problems (auto-removing of attached files and silent adding a new ones with
> 20+ attachments) I have doubts that our logbook in a good state. And we 
just
> started to use it. And I am still so excited about it!!

Actually my philosophy is not to cure symptoms of a problem, but fix the 
source of it. The reply/attachment bug is fixed, and a warning about 
exceeding the number of attachments will come soon.

About the integrity, there is no problem. As you might know, the xxxxxxa.log 
files are plain text files. The line "Attachments: xxx" contains a simple 
text list of all attachments. In the above case a few files might be missing 
in that line, but they are present in the log directory. So in worst case 
edit the xxxxxxa.log file manually, adding the file names, and maybe restart 
elogd to rebuild the index properly. Otherwise there is no integrity problem.

I've been using elog for several months now, and one thing that's always
seemed odd to me are the things like max number of attachments and max
attachment size are defined right in the source code, and not in the config
file.  It would seem that it would be simple to be able to define stuff like
that in the config file (and have defaults in case they weren't specified),
which would fix a lot of the recompiling problems - just edit the config file
and restart elog.  Not that recompiling elog is difficult, it just seems like
recompiling for such a simple setting is overkill...

Anyway, just curious.  Is there a technical reason this is not done?

Justin

> source of it. The reply/attachment bug is fixed, and a warning about 
> exceeding the number of attachments will come soon.