Hello Stefan,

it would be useful, if the web server automatically produced tags <A NAME=
[AttachNo3]>Anhang 3</A> around the entry of the attachment. With this one 
could easily reference in the HTML text an attachement at the end of the 
page.

I had a problem, when I just put a HTML text with <IMG> tags into the 
formular box and I could not reference them although they were available 
(and displayed pictures) as attachments.

Thomas

> it would be useful, if the web server automatically produced tags <A NAME=
> [AttachNo3]>Anhang 3</A> around the entry of the attachment. With this one 
> could easily reference in the HTML text an attachement at the end of the 
> page.

I added a name tag <A NAME=attx> where x is 1,2,3,... to the attachments 
(->CVS). So you reference them by "/<logbook>/<id>#attx" where x is the 
attachment number, <id> the message ID (the one displayed in the URL if you 
display a single message) and <logbook> is the logbook name.

> I had a problem, when I just put a HTML text with <IMG> tags into the 
> formular box and I could not reference them although they were available 
> (and displayed pictures) as attachments.

That won't work, since attachments are preceeded by the date/time, to avoid 
name collisions if two identical file names are submitted several times. You 
see that if you click on an attachment to display only that picture. The URL 
in the browser gives you the full URL including the date/time, which you 
have to use to reference that image. This is of course not possible if you 
are just submitting an entry, since you don't know which exact time the URL 
will get. So you first have to submit the message with the attachment, the 
lookup the attachment URL, then edit the message again and enter the full 
URL. Not very handy, I know, but right now the only way.

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.

Hello

I have upgraded elog from version 2.2.4 to 2.3.6 and then entry "Number
Attachments =" is not being read.  Looking at the changelog, I found that
"Number Attachments" has been removed in favor of "enable attachments".  I
tried looking in the documentation but I can't find a discription of the way
 in which multiple attachments are handled.  Can someone give me a pointer?

Thanks
Kevin

> I have upgraded elog from version 2.2.4 to 2.3.6 and then entry "Number
> Attachments =" is not being read.  Looking at the changelog, I found that
> "Number Attachments" has been removed in favor of "enable attachments".  I
> tried looking in the documentation but I can't find a discription of the way
>  in which multiple attachments are handled.  Can someone give me a pointer?

Just upload one attachment at a time by hitting the "Upload" button, your 
message text stays there. Once you are finished, hit "Submit". Sorry, I 
thought this would be obvious, since most providers use this for their mail 
web interface.

> > I have upgraded elog from version 2.2.4 to 2.3.6 and then entry "Number
> > Attachments =" is not being read.  Looking at the changelog, I found that
> > "Number Attachments" has been removed in favor of "enable attachments".  I
> > tried looking in the documentation but I can't find a discription of the way
> >  in which multiple attachments are handled.  Can someone give me a pointer?
> 
> Just upload one attachment at a time by hitting the "Upload" button, your 
> message text stays there. Once you are finished, hit "Submit". Sorry, I 
> thought this would be obvious, since most providers use this for their mail 
> web interface.

No need to say sorry.  It is probably obvious to pretty much everyone.  -- It
the story of my life.

Thanks
Kevin

Can anyone tell me the URL for the CVS download section

the link has gone from one of the main screens

Cheers

> Can anyone tell me the URL for the CVS download section
> 
> the link has gone from one of the main screens
> 
> Cheers

The message stating the URL is still in this forum: elog:233

Hello everybody.

I am sure that some of you (just like me) experimented already with themes 
and especially now with .CSS in order to give ELOG a different "look" 
and "feel". 

I was wondering if we could maybe share examples of such adapted 
ELOG's .CSS files (or themes). Maybe you can take a screen shot of your 
favorite ELOG "face" (no sensitive data, of course) and post it here as an 
attachement. Or is everybody using only the original look that Stefan 
delivers as default?

Let's share some inspiration. I'll post mine as soon as finished the re-
look.

Tomas

> Let's share some inspiration. I'll post mine as soon as finished the re-
> look.

Excellent idea. I added a category "CSS File" in the logbook "Config 
Examples" next to this forum. You can login with the same user name and 
password as for this forum. As an example, I posted the new CSS file. Please 
note that one need small changes in elogd.c to accomodate for the new 3D 
look (basically don't display lines between cells), so it won't work very 
nice with pre-2.3.7.

So everybody is invited to post his favourite CSS files an icons there. 
Maybe we can even make a competition about the nicest ELOG icon...

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone had a solution for my problem.
We are trying to run several books on one server. The books are grouped 
such as follows :

Group Users1 = Book1, Book2, Book3
Group Users2 = Book4, Book5, Book6
Group Users3 = Book7, Book8, Book9

We would like to give access to selected users to only their Group. So that 
for instance Users1 cannot access the books of group Users3. I was 
wondering if there is any notion of "User profile" or security per logbook 
Group implemented?

What we do for now is that we have 3 different PASSELOG files and for each 
Book we need to specify which PASSELOG should be used for authentication. 
This works fine except that we prefer that users do not see the other 
logbooks listed in the main menu nor the other "inaccessible" logbook tabs 
in the logbook view. Is there a way to hide these for them (but only for 
them)?

Tomas

> We would like to give access to selected users to only their Group. So that 
> for instance Users1 cannot access the books of group Users3. I was 
> wondering if there is any notion of "User profile" or security per logbook 
> Group implemented?

No, groups of users are not yet implemented, but it's on the wishlist and I 
added your vote for this item.

> What we do for now is that we have 3 different PASSELOG files and for each 
> Book we need to specify which PASSELOG should be used for authentication. 
> This works fine except that we prefer that users do not see the other 
> logbooks listed in the main menu nor the other "inaccessible" logbook tabs 
> in the logbook view. Is there a way to hide these for them (but only for 
> them)?

A (poor man's) work-around right now is to run three instances of elogd on 
three different ports, then use Apache as a proxy. I do this in this server 
for example. Under http://midas.psi.ch/elogdemo you see the public logbooks, 
while under http://midas.psi.ch/megelog you see some logbooks from an 
experiment here at our institute. The access control is completely separated, 
and you don't see the logbook tabs from the other group as well.

I have managed to get this to work (so far).

What I do is use a separate password file and directory for each log.

I haven't tested it with with the current version but it worked fine before
that. My testing consisted of creating a user in the main password file and
see if he could get to anything I didn't want him to. This may not be enough
for something that requires a high level of security. 

When I create a new user I move that line to the appropriate password file if
it isn't already there.

You will get an invalid user message and a prompt if you try access a log that
doesn't have your user name in the password file. 

I only have six people using it so this isn't much trouble.

I would like to see groups implemented to make this more manageable.

> Hi,
> 
> I was wondering if anyone had a solution for my problem.
> We are trying to run several books on one server. The books are grouped 
> such as follows :
> 
> Group Users1 = Book1, Book2, Book3
> Group Users2 = Book4, Book5, Book6
> Group Users3 = Book7, Book8, Book9
> 
> We would like to give access to selected users to only their Group. So that 
> for instance Users1 cannot access the books of group Users3. I was 
> wondering if there is any notion of "User profile" or security per logbook 
> Group implemented?
> 
> What we do for now is that we have 3 different PASSELOG files and for each 
> Book we need to specify which PASSELOG should be used for authentication. 
> This works fine except that we prefer that users do not see the other 
> logbooks listed in the main menu nor the other "inaccessible" logbook tabs 
> in the logbook view. Is there a way to hide these for them (but only for 
> them)?
> 
> Tomas

Robert, this is exactly what we managed to do as well. And it works fine. 
The only issue is that the users from one group can "SEE" the book names 
available to other groups. 

The solution Stephane suggested seems like the only possible right now.

Anyways, thank you for your answers, Robert & Stephane !

Tomas


> I have managed to get this to work (so far).
> 
> What I do is use a separate password file and directory for each log.
> 
> I haven't tested it with with the current version but it worked fine before
> that. My testing consisted of creating a user in the main password file and
> see if he could get to anything I didn't want him to. This may not be 
enough
> for something that requires a high level of security. 
> 
> When I create a new user I move that line to the appropriate password file 
if
> it isn't already there.
> 
> You will get an invalid user message and a prompt if you try access a log 
that
> doesn't have your user name in the password file. 
> 
> I only have six people using it so this isn't much trouble.
> 
> I would like to see groups implemented to make this more manageable.
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I was wondering if anyone had a solution for my problem.
> > We are trying to run several books on one server. The books are grouped 
> > such as follows :
> > 
> > Group Users1 = Book1, Book2, Book3
> > Group Users2 = Book4, Book5, Book6
> > Group Users3 = Book7, Book8, Book9
> > 
> > We would like to give access to selected users to only their Group. So 
that 
> > for instance Users1 cannot access the books of group Users3. I was 
> > wondering if there is any notion of "User profile" or security per 
logbook 
> > Group implemented?
> > 
> > What we do for now is that we have 3 different PASSELOG files and for 
each 
> > Book we need to specify which PASSELOG should be used for 
authentication. 
> > This works fine except that we prefer that users do not see the other 
> > logbooks listed in the main menu nor the other "inaccessible" logbook 
tabs 
> > in the logbook view. Is there a way to hide these for them (but only for 
> > them)?
> > 
> > Tomas

Today I found out that Apache 1.3.23 (and probably 1.3.24) has a problem 
with ELOG if used as a proxy server. Due to a bug in Apache, only one 
cookie is transmitted through the proxy at a time. This makes it impossible 
to log in into ELOG with user name and password (requires two cookies). 
Apache 1.3.23 comes with RedHat 7.3 for example.

To solve the problem, update Apache to 1.3.27.

See also http://bugs.apache.org/index.cgi/full/9655

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.

> 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.

> 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.