> > 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.

> 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?

The max attachment size I was able to not only make configurable, but to make 
dynamically. So if there is a very large attachment, the size is dynamically 
extended as long as there is RAM. The max number of attachments is not easy 
to change, since it's used internally as an array size, which has to be 
determined at compile time. Making this dynamically would require a major 
rework, which of course could be done, but it might be that there are more 
urgent requests.

missing '.' in emails
-----------------------

A dot '.' at the beginning of a line is not transmitted via email.
It is stored in the entry properly though.

Test:
./There is a dot just before '/There...'

Greetings, Heiko

Well it seems here it is working fine...

.

> 
> missing '.' in emails
> -----------------------
> 
> A dot '.' at the beginning of a line is not transmitted via email.
> It is stored in the entry properly though.
> 
> Test:
> ./There is a dot just before '/There...'
> 
> Greetings, Heiko

Here is what I got as email:

Test:
./There is a dot just before '/There...'

So I guess you mean ONLY a dot at the beginning of the line. In the email 
SMTP protocol, at lonely dot at the beginning of the line means "end of 
message" and the mail server stops by that. I checked my mail program and 
found out that it converts a single dot into two dots at the beginning of the 
line. I have to implement this in elgod.c. Thanks for pointing out this 
problem.

> I checked my mail program and 
> found out that it converts a single dot into two dots at the beginning 
> of the line. I have to implement this in elgod.c.

I implemented that (->CVS): a <CR><LF>.<CR><LF> is replaced by 
<CR><LF>..<CR><LF> in email notifications. Now I don't know if all browsers 
under all OS's send a <CR><LF> on line break. If some don't, please let me 
know.

Just upgraded (using rpms) elogd from 2.3.5 
I am running on RH 7.3

I noticed that my custom start page did not display the Welcome title icon.
It worked fine in prior elogs.

Here's the syntax of the config file:

Welcome Title = <img src="thumb.gif"><p><font size=4 color=white>Elog</font>
Resource dir = /usr/local/elog/


"thumb.gif" is located in /usr/local/elog, and is readable by all.
I also tried the full file name in src= 
<img src="/usr/local/elog/thumb.gif">  - same result.

any hints?