| Title: | *OLD* ALL-IN-1 (tm) Support Conference |
| Notice: | Closed - See Note 4331.l to move to IOSG::ALL-IN-1 |
| Moderator: | IOSG::PYE |
| Created: | Thu Jan 30 1992 |
| Last Modified: | Tue Jan 23 1996 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 4343 |
| Total number of notes: | 18308 |
Note 287 describes a problem with electronic messaging. The problem is
basically:-
On the IR and II options, the index forms (ie EM$INDEX$READ) display
the modified date (CAB$.MODIFIED) instead of the delivered date
(CAB$.DELIVERED). On the screen, the title for this field is given as
Received date.
This is obviously wrong and leads to strange dates appearing (ie
receiving a mail on the 15th January, but the date shown is 10th
January).
This happens on both ALL-IN-1 V3.0 and V3.0-1.
Note 287.6 from Andrew.D.Wicks suggests that this problem was
recognised in V2.3 of ALL-IN-1 with the suggestion that the fix be
included in a PFR.
Is there any news of what has happened to this?
Cheers,
Andy
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2101.1 | The things we do for Mark ... | IOSG::MAURICE | Because of the architect the building fell down | Sat Jan 16 1993 21:14 | 14 |
Hi,
It could be changed to use the DELIVERED attribute but at a significant
performance cost. You will have probably noticed that IO is slower than
IR and the underlying cause is that an IR index uses only DOCDB
attributes. Since DELIVERED is a DAF attribute you get the hit of DAF
processing time.
If your customer is prepared to accept the performance hit then it
should be an easy customisation to change it.
Cheers
Stuart
| |||||
| 2101.5 | I think that's what we said in .1 !!! | IOSG::PYE | Graham - ALL-IN-1 Sorcerer's Apprentice | Thu Jan 21 1993 13:56 | 14 |
I think Stuart is saying in .1 that we decided to sacrifice some
confusion in order to gain a lot of performance!
In other words, no we probably aren't going to fix it.
This seems to be in the same category as the frequently requested
enhancement to have the unsent count on the screen. It's a trivial
customisation to add it, but for most people, the performance hit is
unacceptable.
I don't know how we address things like this, short of asking a
question at installation time about how you want it configured :-)
Graham
| |||||