+ 2020.03.02 00:07:44 Node 88 Session (HOLD) Errors (542) Days (7)
+ 2020.03.02 08:15:22 Node 17 set Inactive. Days (31)
+ 2020.03.02 08:15:23 Node 17 packets purged. Days (31)
+ 2020.03.02 08:15:27 Node 17 filebox (fsxnet_z21n1n117) purged. Days (31)
Would this cover what you're looking for? You can do this sort of thing with any MUTIL function really.
This does not set the node (which is set to CRASH) to HOLD
- Mar 05 22:01:51 EXEC EchoNodeTracker
+ Mar 05 22:01:51 Process: Echo Node Tracker
+ Mar 05 22:01:52 Results: 0 Reset, 0 Disabled, 0 Hold in 0.84s
+ Mar 05 22:01:52 Shutdown Normal (0)
I'm wondering why that may be? Could the clue be in the dated Last Out record?
The only thing I can think of is that its not set to crash (which you
said it was) or its broken. Maybe there is some sort of artifact from
one of the older prealphas before I changed the date format.
I have a node that shows as follows
This does not set the node (which is set to CRASH) to HOLD
I have reviewed everything and fixed an issue. Surprisingly nothing was wrong with the logic, it was just set up in a way that it only processed the HOLD logic if they were also expiring for days of inactivity. Fixed!
+ Mar 06 20:39:27 Process: Echo Node Tracker
+ Mar 06 20:39:27 Setting mail to Hold for ID 36 (21:1/129)
+ Mar 06 20:39:27 Setting filebox to Hold for ID 36 (21:1/129)
+ Mar 06 20:39:27 Setting mail to Hold for ID 91 (21:1/182)
+ Mar 06 20:39:27 Setting filebox to Hold for ID 91 (21:1/182)
+ Mar 06 20:39:27 Setting mail to Hold for ID 123 (21:1/205)
+ Mar 06 20:39:27 Setting filebox to Hold for ID 123 (21:1/205)
+ Mar 06 20:39:27 Results: 0 Reset, 0 Disabled, 3 Hold in 0.05s
I have reviewed everything and fixed an issue. Surprisingly nothing was wrong with the logic, it was just set up in a way that it only processed the HOLD logic if they were also expiring for days of inactivity. Fixed!
Do you think when a rule is met a line in the log could state what was TRUE to cause the changed setting to be applied?
A suggestion would be to delink the echomail areas and file bases from
the nodes being made inactive as part of this process.
I have added a print out that shows the number of attempts made and the number of days they were unreachable. The other operations do give more
Setting mail to Hold for 21:1/1 (21 crash errors, 7 days unreachable)
A suggestion would be to delink the echomail areas and file bases fro the nodes being made inactive as part of this process.
I think if I do that I think I'd like to make it optional. I like the idea of being able to reactivate someone and they can pick up right
where they left off without having to sort out what they were subscribed to.
Deleting them from the system does delink them (or should). I don't have access to my TODO list to add this right now but it should be added. Hopefully I won't forget (I am on the move at the moment)
Deleting them from the system does delink them (or should). I don't have access to my TODO list to add this right now but it should be added. Hopefully I won't forget (I am on the move at the moment)
Actually, I don't think it does. I was just looking at Hub 4 (Win 32) system, and when I look at the echomail exports from the message base,
I have added a print out that shows the number of attempts made and t number of days they were unreachable. The other operations do give m
Setting mail to Hold for 21:1/1 (21 crash errors, 7 days unreachabl
Thanks! Yes I think this hits the mark and will help understanding as to why.
I can see maybe something like what you're showing happening if a situation occurs where echomail is exporting at the same time you are trying to make adjustments to echomail nodes though.
Sysop: | Eric Oulashin |
---|---|
Location: | Beaverton, Oregon, USA |
Users: | 90 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 08:15:08 |
Calls: | 5,073 |
Calls today: | 5 |
Files: | 8,491 |
Messages: | 352,800 |