| 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 |
Hi All,
A customer has ALL-IN-1 IOS 2.3 (patches installed according to the
customer are K501-K509 and "K536" ? OpenVMS 5.5-2.
The customer will be upgrading to 3.0 and at the moment is unable to do so
due to a lack of time and bodies to do the work. The following is the
customers problem description:
------
The error occurs when creating an event from Time Management. When
specifying the attendees for an event, if a distribution list is used that
contains other distribution lists then not all of the addresses are
included when the distribution list is expanded.
Note that the same distribution list works fine under Electronic
Messaging.
There does not appear to be any pattern as to which addresses are
included and which are missed. Parts of one 'sub' list will be included
while another might be missed entirely.
It is not a problem with a specific distribution list as I have
recreated the problem with two others.
------
I have read a number of articles in Stars and looked through the 2.3
conference. I cannot find anything that would explain why this is
happening. NOTE the DL's is expanded from the EM sub-system BUT not
from the TM sub-system.
I would be grateful for any help. Thanks,
Sunil
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3495.1 | RTFRN for v2.4 (:==:) obviously | AIMTEC::WICKS_A | U.S.A 2 England 0 - I was there! | Fri Nov 05 1993 00:43 | 15 |
Sunil,
nested dist lists not working in TM is actually a well known problem
in v2.* that;s release noted somewhere in the v2.4 release notes
there's even a note in the old notes file from our DPC on this
It appears to work fine in v3.0
P.S K536 is one of the series of FCVR patches that shipped - it
followed K504 if my memory serves me and for some reason the next
nunber after 536 is 537 and not 566 or something
regards,
Andrew.D.Wicks
| |||||