Deen

You would need to create a new outbound route and set up the desired encryption and test. This is covered here: https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/Outbound_Mail_Routing

It might be a little cluttered as when selected you would then have the Team, Analyst and Comment fields needing to appear under the Information section, but if possible i'm sure it will be considered.

@Alberto M I cant see anything in the application settings that would treat escalation updates differently to other non owner updates. The only potential way around this that I can see would be to disable the following so that the escalation doesn't actually post to the timeline. Post to Timeline - Tick if you want the notification text to be posted on the timeline of the impacted request

@Adrian Simpkins if the email is not actually reaching Hornbill, there is no mechanism that I can see in Hornbill which would then be able to send a bounce back as it would have no knowledge of the email. It's probably reaching the mailserver and residing there. The following may be of use in setting this up: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/mail-flow-best-practices/non-delivery-reports-in-exchange-online/non-delivery-reports-in-exchange-online

@mojahidm I don't think so, this is laid out here: https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/Managing_Contact_Visibility_of_Organisation's_Requests_on_the_Customer_Portal The contact needs to be part of the same organisation as the contact that raised the request before they can view it.

@Jamie Talbot It is not possible to delete a process if there are active requests having a workflow which is using that process. See here were it is covered in more detail:

@Alisha disregard the above for reports, as _itsm_request_team_assignment is a separate table that contains the info you are after. The h_assignment_timestamp field will contain the assignment time and h_team_id the team it was assigned to.

@Alisha although there is a field in the database that specifies what team the request resides with, I don't see one for when it was assigned so that would make a filter problematic. There is also the issue of the request potentially being reassigned several times during its life cycle.

@Paul Alexander not possible from what I can see to have it per Catalog item, but I've tagged it as an enhancement.

@James Targett You can switch the 'AND's to 'OR's by simply clicking on them in the Select Filter criteria.

Just to tie this one up, a patch has been released to all instances so this should no longer be an issue going forwards.

Looking through the Business Process list any BP's that have an Active state of De-Activated and hadn't been updated for some time would be prime candidates for review. As for a report on which ones are actually in use that might be trickier.

@Michael Sharp It would also be worth checking that the default visibility is set to Team rather than owner:

@Ann-MarieHolloway Although from a few years ago the following suggests that any new options would need to be added by our developers: https://community.hornbill.com/topic/11324-additional-availability-option-busy/?tab=comments#comment-53028

@mojahidm I cant see an easier way of doing this so it may need to go down the enhancement route.

@Nikolaj the new build of Service Manager is now available. Let us know if the problem still occurs after taking the update.

No problem Adrian. The patch should have been rolled out for everyone and should no longer be an issue.

We have now produced a patch to correct the Edge related issues. If anyone is still encountering problems please let me know.

@Ann-MarieHolloway if this started to occur immediately after applying build 1908 then it might suggest a potential issue that needs looking at. It would be worth raising this directly with the Support team.

@Adrian Simpkins do you get the option to expand the error? Would be interesting to see the rest of it.

@Paul Alexander puzzling how that has happened, instead of redoing all the connections is there not another version of the BP you can fall back on in Publishing Manager?

@HHH I can see your point, but wouldn't someone taking ownership of the request accomplish something similar, as you could then look at the request, see it has an owner and then know that no action is required as someone else is handling it.

Do you want to see only those updates that have specifically been done via the Self service?

@Adrian Simpkins I don't think an audit history is kept for these deletions and as a result reporting on them would be problematic.

@Martyn Houghton I understand this is still an ongoing issue. I'll speak to our developers to see if they can get this sorted.