Victor

@Berto2002 I'm afraid that's not how it works... email template variables and workflows are not related to one another... the email templates have their own (independent) way of resolving variables while "Get Request Details" workflow node only provides runtime values for the workflow (these are values that are used inside the workflow but nowhere else). Therefore for email template variables to work, there is no requirement for workflows to have any specific configuration (e.g. "Get Request Details" node).

@Ruth are you using request categories alongside closure categories? If not this would be an option to consider. Another option is to make use of custom fields that you can expose on request details. You can use them for reporting... On a side note, is this (also) your forum user @Ruth Hicks?

The request timeline entry remains however the email will not be accessible from the "View Email" option in the timeline entry. But the timeline itself remains with whatever content it currently has.

And more detailed explanation as to why the brackets are needed...

@all this is not an issue with forums. For future reference, please post in the relevant section.

Consolidating threads

@billster nah, you can't do that I'm afraid... a) can't "blank" the priority and b) it will never wait at that node because there is already a priority... How about a task (which is effect suspends the workflow)?

Another alternative is to map custom fields in IC configuration.

@SJEaton I'm afraid we could not find any fault with custom field mappings on the examples provided. We have send you a more detailed update on the support request.

@Oscar Stankard we are working on to put everything together, I believe all will become more clear once that is published (soonTM) EDIT: the email delivery is fine from what we can see, no further issues.

@billster yes it is possible, but not just with the SLA, we need to get the workflow involved here... the workflow, specifically the SM "Get Request Details" node, has a very useful variable for this scenario: time logged. This is a number representing the seconds that passed since midnight. As you can probably imagine, we can use this to determine if the request was raised OOH or not. Then we can branch the workflow and, let's say we assign a certain priority in both cases. We can then set SLA rules based on this priority. Or, alternatively, use request custom fields and set SLA rules based on values in that field. Makes sense?

@Berto2002 certainly will, just need to make sure we have all the bits and pieces beforehand.

In terms of the issue itself, we do have a decent idea of how it came to be, the what's and why's. However, we would like to investigate this a bit further, in bit more detail, before we come back with a more in depth RCA. I will update the thread when this is ready.

@KrisReynolds there is no "resend all" button I'm afraid. Each email has to be resent, as suggested by Martyn.

We have deployed a patch in all live instances that should address the issue with outgoing email. Emails that failed to be send while the issue was ongoing and currently residing in Sent Items folder can be manually resent. Emails that failed to be send while the issue was ongoing and currently residing in Outbox folder will be automatically sent on the next attempt.

We are almost ready to have the fix deployed. Current ETA is to have the fix deployed by 15.00. I will update this post if anything changes.

We identified the root cause for the issue and we are working to deploy a change that should resolve the issue (this is currently being tested). We will post more details about this shortly.

We have received information from Microsoft regarding recent changes whereby they have disabled TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1 on SMTP connectors. However, we are not affected by this particular change as Hornbill already supports TLS up to 1.3. We are continuing to investigate the issue and possible options here.

@Berto2002 thank you for the update, happy to hear the Direct Outbound solution is suitable and working for you.

@Martyn Houghton yes, we know... it is a proposed solution, might not be suitable for some... we are definitely looking into finding more alternative solutions (if there are any) as well as any possible code changes we can implement here. I assure everyone this being investigated internally with the highest urgency and priority. To clarify for anyone else, Direct Outbound requires an SPF record (which is in essence a DNS entry/record). More info here: https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php?title=Outbound_Mail_Routing

@Oscar Stankard thank you for the update, happy to hear the Direct Outbound solution is suitable and working for you.

@Berto2002 it is possible the authorisation email fails to be sent due to the issue(s) discussed here:

It is not very unusual for Microsoft to not have posted an update in this regard. We have raised the issue with Microsoft and we are looking into any possible alternatives and solutions that can be implemented on Hornbill side in the interim to restore the service functionality.

@samwoo short answer is no, not really, but would be good if we can find some details as to what this CRM system would be used for in your organisation (apart from the obvious acronym) ...

@billster nice what was it?