Dear Stefen,

Please help me & reply on my request. Is my global config correct?

 Dear Stefan

Thank you for your reply. Please check is my entry correct?

port = 8080

Admin user = harish

url = http://localhost:8080

;Find Menu commands = Logout, New, Find, Select, Config, Last day, Last 10, Help

;Guest Menu commands = Login, Back, Find, Last day, Last 10, Help, Logout

;Guest Find Menu commands = Login, Back, Find, Last day, Last 10, Help

SMTP host = smtp.omantel.net.om

SMTP port = 25

$telnet smtp.omantel.net.om 25

$AUTH PLAIN

SMTP username = harish.amin@holiday.co.om

SMTP Password = ********

Subst Email = $user_email

Logfile = errorh.log

Email Encoding = 4

Entries per page = 50

;Logfile = harish.log

;Logging level = 2

 For the login to your email sever, the password is encoded in base64 form (actually not really secure). Somehow your server does not support this. Unfortunately I cannot test this without access to your server. But you can try yourself by doing a telnet to your mail server like:

$ telnet <server.domanin> 25

...

$ AUTH PLAIN

With the "plain" method, you should be able to enter your password in plain text (not base64 encoded), and see if that works. If you are successful, I can add this option to elog.

Best,

Stefan

 Dear Team,

I am having a log book and would like to activate the email notification. I have made the changes as per the guidelines but I am getting the error message while submitting the entry - Error sending Email via "smtp.omantel.net.om": 5.5.4 cannot decode AUTH parameter

The details are as below : (Please note I have replaced the password with the * marks)

21-Nov-2014 16:58:28 [harish@127.0.0.1] {SCREENING VISIT} NEW entry #0

21-Nov-2014 16:58:28 [harish@127.0.0.1] {SCREENING VISIT} Email from <harish.amin@holiday.co.om> to harish.amin@holiday.co.om, SMTP host smtp.omantel.net.om

21-Nov-2014 16:58:28 [harish@127.0.0.1] {SCREENING VISIT} 220 fmgw1.omantel.net.om ESMTP Smtpd; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:32:52 +0400

21-Nov-2014 16:58:28 [harish@127.0.0.1] {SCREENING VISIT} 

21-Nov-2014 16:58:28 [harish@127.0.0.1] {SCREENING VISIT} EHLO localhost

21-Nov-2014 16:58:29 [harish@127.0.0.1] {SCREENING VISIT} 250-fmgw1.omantel.net.om Hello [188.66.222.72], pleased to meet you

21-Nov-2014 16:58:29 [harish@127.0.0.1] {SCREENING VISIT} 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES

21-Nov-2014 16:58:29 [harish@127.0.0.1] {SCREENING VISIT} 250-PIPELINING

21-Nov-2014 16:58:29 [harish@127.0.0.1] {SCREENING VISIT} 250-8BITMIME

21-Nov-2014 16:58:29 [harish@127.0.0.1] {SCREENING VISIT} 250-SIZE 32235520

21-Nov-2014 16:58:29 [harish@127.0.0.1] {SCREENING VISIT} 250-DSN

21-Nov-2014 16:58:29 [harish@127.0.0.1] {SCREENING VISIT} 250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN

21-Nov-2014 16:58:29 [harish@127.0.0.1] {SCREENING VISIT} 250-STARTTLS

21-Nov-2014 16:58:29 [harish@127.0.0.1] {SCREENING VISIT} 250-DELIVERBY

21-Nov-2014 16:58:29 [harish@127.0.0.1] {SCREENING VISIT} 250 HELP

21-Nov-2014 16:58:29 [harish@127.0.0.1] {SCREENING VISIT} AUTH LOGIN

21-Nov-2014 16:58:29 [harish@127.0.0.1] {SCREENING VISIT} Username

21-Nov-2014 16:58:29 [harish@127.0.0.1] {SCREENING VISIT} harish.amin@holiday.co.om

21-Nov-2014 16:58:29 [harish@127.0.0.1] {SCREENING VISIT} Password

21-Nov-2014 16:58:29 [harish@127.0.0.1] {SCREENING VISIT} ******

21-Nov-2014 16:58:30 [harish@127.0.0.1] {SCREENING VISIT} 501 5.5.4 cannot decode AUTH parameter ******

Please help me to resolve this issue.

Thank you

Harish Amin

Andreas Luedeke wrote:

Chris Jennings wrote: Chris Jennings wrote: I have an attribute formatted as a date (but not labeled as date) and is sorted as second priority. The sort works fine until I enter a date older than Jan 1st 2002. When I do this it is sorted as the latest. Is this a bug or simply not designed to use dates this old? Thanks in advance, Chris  Sorry, my mistake. The cutoff date is anything before September 9th 2001 does not sort. I think I remember that this has been discussed earlier: it is a little bug in elogd. You can see where it comes from if you type in the little command 'date -d "9-Sep-2001 3:46:40" +%s' Converted to "seconds of the epoche" (seconds since 1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC) the date "9-Sep-2001 3:46:40" has one digit more than "9-Sep-2001 3:46:39". Since elog makes a string comparison, suddenly 1'000'000'000 is less than 999'999'999; therefore the wrong sorting. Workaround: you can modify your old entries and add a leading zero to all entries where your specific date field starts with a '9'. Stefan: you should fix it at least well before 20-Nov-2286 18:46:40, when the same bug strikes again!

Ok, well before 2286 approaches I fixed that bug and committed it to the GIT repository (master branch).

/Stefan 

Workaround: you can modify your old entries and add a leading zero to all entries where your specific date field starts with a '9'.

Stefan: you should fix it at least well before 20-Nov-2286 18:46:40, when the same bug strikes again!

I tried to attach a screenshot showing this, but kept getting a 502 bad gateway error.
The message in the red banner is
Error sending Email via <i>"psquad.psi.ch"</i>
with that html showing, by the way.
> Hi Stefan and Andreas,
> 
> When I submitted the previous entry, I had an error message about not able to send via psxxxx.psi.ch come up as
> a red bar at the top of the elog page - sorry, cannot remember the subdomain name correctly.
> 
> The observations I was going to make is firstly the change in layout of the Find section - maybe I'll get used
> to it but the change in layout wasn't warmly welcomed.
> 
> Also, shame that moving from Subversion means that the increments are no longer in easy numerical order.  So I
> believe that I am commenting on the latest possible version available, a738232.
> 
> A question.  My logbooks directory is now 1.8GB.  Yes, there are a lot of attachments etc to bulk it out, but
> it's all plain text comments.  Is there a limit as to the size, or total number of entries?  Elog takes a
> notible amount of time to index it all these days, and I have wondered whether a couple of "instabilities" might
> be caused by this.  Anyone any thoughts?
> 
> I don't know how I managed it, but I got elog to generate two entries with the identical ID no.  The new entries
> were different as well.  The log file faithfully had recorded the two separate replies to the entry having the
> same ID no as well.   Unfortunately I went and corrected it by editing the YYMMDDa.log file without keeping a
> copy.  I have also had a mysterious entry ID0 appear in threaded display, despite there being no entry 0; and if
> it appears, it appears in two or three places within the list of threaded entries.