[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ngw
Subject:    Re: Blank messages
From:       "Holly Newman" <HNewman () oacis ! com>
Date:       1999-09-21 16:06:13
Message-ID: s7e74a8a.079 () rafiki
[Download RAW message or body]

Aha.  I've opted not to lock down the client options because it doesn't make any \
distinction between received and sent.  I would have a revolution here if I tried to \
manage Inbox items for them (I know, it's out of control).  That's why I was using \
the Expire/Sent option.

> > > "Tom Miller" <tom.miller@ferc.fed.us> 09/21/99 08:37AM >>>
You can set these settings at the domain, post office or user level.  Click on one of \
these, then choose Tools > GroupWise Utilities > Client Options > Environment > \
Cleanup.  Here is where you place the lockdown.  (This is GroupWise 5.2.4 in \
NWAdmn95).

I have our setting to 90 days mail/phone, none for Calendar, 10 days trash.  But on \
Mondays and days after holidays I notice the NLMs are doing heavy purges, and then I \
get complains about slowness.  Hence the moving away from these settings.

Tom Miller
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Tom.Miller@ferc.fed.us 

> > > "Holly Newman" <HNewman@oacis.com> 9/21/1999 11:17:09 AM >>>
And what do you mean by turning off 'auto-purge'?  Are you talking about the Nightly \
User Upkeep? or am I missing something?

Holly

> > > "Tom Miller" <tom.miller@ferc.fed.us> 09/21/99 05:57AM >>>
I have a few additional questions about this.  When you mean GWCheck has a bug, do \
you mean the NLM version or the Windows version?  And does this apply to all versions \
of 5.5 or just 5.5.2?  

If I run Expire/Reduce on all items, then I should not see this happening, but if I \
run Expire/Reduce on Send Items, I'll see it?  Does this affect all users on the PO \
or just some, or just those of a particular mg.db?

I'm concerned about this; The C/S performance on our system is abismal, and I'm \
thinking of turning off auto-purge and running a weekend cleanup instead.  Now this \
has me guessing.  What should I do?





Tom Miller
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Tom.Miller@ferc.fed.us 

> > > "Holly Newman" <HNewman@oacis.com> 9/20/1999 1:57:28 PM >>>
This is EXACTLY what I suspected, but couldn't get anybody to fess up to it.  The \
first time I observed it was in April, when I cleaned up for my 5.2 -> 5.5 upgrade.  \
I had my Expires set to 180 days, and messages from October 1998 went missing.  Just \
recently, I observed that messages from February 1999 went missing - coincidence?  I \
think not.  Somebody needs to address this.

But then I got an even stranger problem: I had messages FROM THE GW LIST go missing.  \
Since I am the only one in the company that gets this mail, there should only be \
InBox references to the mail.  So the behavior that you and I have seen does not \
explain this.

Anyway, I have killed my Expire/Outbox routine until somebody convinces me it is \
fixed.  Thanks for confirming my fears.

Holly

> > > "Gwendolyn Sanders" <gsanders@huber.com> 09/20/99 09:41AM >>>
Hi Holly-

I think there is a bug in GWCheck Expire/Reduces.  If you run an expire on Sent Items \
contents, the current version of GWCheck doesn't seem to realize that your OUTbox \
item is my INbox item.  Instead of realizing it needs to leave the body of that \
message in the msg.db for me to read even though it's deleting your outbox pointer, \
it seems to be removing the message bodies from msg.db, which leaves everyone who had \
your outgoing item as an incoming item with a header in the user.db, but no body in \
the msg.db.  Then they get blank bodies and/or D107 errors.

I have not seen a TID on this (but I have not looked recently either).  Everyone who \
has the problem and has reported it to the list was running Expires on outboxes, \
though, so you could try stopping your scheduled Expires for a bit and see if the \
problem goes away. :)

I do expires, but I do them on all items, not just Sent (we limit our users to 30 \
days mail, 180 days calendar).  Are you fortunate enough to have a time limit on mail \
you keep?  If so you could perhaps run your expires on all contents based on that \
time limit, and eliminate the problem that way.


Regards,

Gwendolyn Sanders
Systems/Network Administrator
404-949-5533
Internet:  gsanders@huber.com 

> > > "Holly Newman" <HNewman@oacis.com> 9/16/99 2:23:24 PM >>>
I'm reposting this because I seemed to have been off the list when I sent it \
originally.

¯-------------

OK, I've had enough.  I'm scared to do routine maintenance because everytime I do it, \
thousands of messages disappear and my users are getting mad.

What causes this: Contents check reports MANY messages not existing and thus being \
converted to personal items.  User has a subject line so all looks well, but when \
they open the message they see (depending on client) D107 (5.2) or blank message body \
(5.5).

I heard something about Novell planning it this way so that they could at least see \
the subject line of what was missing, but my question is what hammers the messages in \
the first place?  I've got a scheduled Expire/Reduce for Trash and Outbox messages.  \
But my understanding of single-storage mail systems is that as long as somebody still \
deems the message important enough to keep, the message will still remain in the \
database.

Can anybody clear me up on this?

Losing credibility,

Holly


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]