RE: [SA-list] People email vs. Global change SMTP send to:

[Barry George]

Title: Message

Ok, so maybe I'm going about this all wrong. Why do a global replace, well say I set up the primary email with two addresses, my work email and my cell phone email. Then for what ever reason I want to change one of those. I do a global replace with the new information that changes all host entries, but also wipes out the team. See?

Barry

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dirk Bulinckx
Sent: September 19, 2003 4:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SA-list] People email vs. Global change SMTP send to:

That's normal but why should you do the global replace?

Since it's just one address that changes.

    team_1

        person_1

        person_2

 

change address of person_2

and nothing else has to be done...

 

dirk.

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Barry George
Sent: Fri Sep 19 9:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SA-list] People email vs. Global change SMTP send to:

No it didn't...  solve the problem that is. Even using and specifying a team, that team is overwritten with information from the global replace 'Primary SMTP: Send mail to' value.  :-(   

Vs 4.0.1497

 

Cheers

Barry

-----Original Message-----
From: Barry George
Sent: September 19, 2003 3:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SA-list] People email vs. Global change SMTP send to:

Roger that. I'll set it up that way then.

 

Thanks

Barry

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dirk Bulinckx
Sent: September 19, 2003 3:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SA-list] People email vs. Global change SMTP send to:

Within the "limit" of the global replace a team would have solved your problem...

 

dirk.

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Barry George
Sent: Fri Sep 19 8:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SA-list] People email vs. Global change SMTP send to:

Not quite, but I think I see where you are going. The "customer" lets call him "support" has a green address and a blue address set to different times of the day, so in the evening/weekends blue address is used. In the alert I have added one "send smtp mail primary" with my address (primary) when 1 down. Then a second "send smtp mail primary" is added with my default removed and replaces with the "support" entry, set to when 1 down.

 

So I'm using 'send smtp mail primary' twice. So obviously when I make a global change to the 'primary sent to', it gets changed to that value. So its not really a team function, unless of course I add myself with the support entry to form a team?

 

Thanks

Barry

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dirk Bulinckx
Sent: September 19, 2003 2:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SA-list] People email vs. Global change SMTP send to:

Do I understand correctly that you had 2 rules for each entry?

One that sends to the customer and one to the support address?

 

And after the change both are not set to the support address?

 

 

Why not make just one rule and send to a team, team with 2 members being the customer and support.  If the address of one of them changes you just need to change the address of that "person".

 

 

dirk.

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Barry George
Sent: Fri Sep 19 7:57 PM
To: Salive List
Subject: [SA-list] People email vs. Global change SMTP send to:

Here's a pickle,

 

I've set up a customer to get email status alerts for his host checks, using the "People" function. Customer has two emails, one a paging service different times of the day etc. All's good, customer gets emails. Then using Global change Primary SMTP send to: function and make changes to all host because of a local primary support address change. That customers host entry is over-written.

 

Ok by design, fair enough, but is there any way dirk to protect those "unique" instances? Otherwise its resetting all the unique hosts over again. Or could I possibly be missing another option.....   :-)

 

Thanks

Barry