David Mosedale

Not as far as I know. There are 10 or 15 email addresses runnign through my email server on a daily basis, in addition to the one account being used by FileMaker. It is also my understanding that the email interrogation database from Savvy checks all different authentication and encryption options when it runs. But I will flag it up as a possibility with my email server admin, who is looking into this for me. Thanks for the suggestion, Dave

Hi all, I wonder if anybody can think of anything I have missed here, because I am having problems sending an email from a script directly through the SMTP server. Firstly, this had been working for ages (months). But suddenly the emails stopped working and ever since I have received the dreaded "1506 error". So then I try and work out what's going on. The db is held on a server (FM 10). But I can bring it down onto my laptop and get the same error on FMPA11. I have tried the SMTP settings from three different email accounts (two of which are on different servers). The Send Mail script step is populated with data from fields - replacing with plain text doesn't help. The "To" box has been replaced with plain text (no brackets anywhere!), the From box has been deleted, put back in with and without spaces. The email is correctly generated if you "Send Email via Email client". The email accounts can be accessed with exactly the same settings as I use to put into FileMaker if I put them into my email client on my laptop, so it is not a port issue when I am running it directly on my computer (even if it could be when hosted elsewhere). Can anyone think of anything I haven't tried? I have asked both my email server and hosting provider if they have changed anything but they haven't got back to me yet. The problem is that by trying it both online and here, and changing the email accounts I use I appear to have changed anything and everything, but nothing works. I have even tried SavvyData's Email interrogation db, and that can't connect to the SMTP server either (yes; retyped password a million times too!). Thanks in advance if anyone can help with this, David

Hi bcooney, Thanks for the help. This has sorted me out. In fact, I am running FM 10 for development purposes on my laptop, but the server I host on is running FM 11. I have got round it by splitting the startup script into two, as the rest of the script required the "Run with full access". So now it runs the bit of the script I pasted earlier without full access privileges and then calls a second script which does use full access privileges. I could have used the alternative Get (AccountPrivilegeSetName) parameter, but then any development I do using FM 10 would not recognise it. Thanks for the help, Dave

Hi all, This doesn't seem like the most difficult of problems - after all there is a simple script step to do it, but for some reason my script that looks like this at the beginning: Enter Browse Mode [] If [Get ( PrivilegeSetName ) = "[Full Access]" Show/Hide Status Area [show] Else Show/Hide Status Area [Lock; Hide] End If Refresh Window simply does not do what I think it should. Everyone sees the status area, regardless of their privilege set. Can anyone think of a reason why this does not work? I want to use IWP to publish the database, but this script does not do what it is supposed to do either on a server or run directly on a client. Thanks in advance for any help, Dave

This thread is a little old, but thought that I would add a couple of comments. This is something that I would also like to be able to do. I found this: http://www.databasepros.com/FMPro?-DB=resources.fp5&-lay=cgi&-format=list.html&-FIND=+&resource_id=DBPros000743 from John Osbourne, that enables you to do exactly what you want neatly. The problem with it is that it is quite a lot of work. I have many layouts with hundreds of fields - but want only one field visible to a particular privelege set. As far as I can see it the method does not work in reverse - that is you can hide every field you want hidden within a portal, but when you want to hide 250 and see 1, a method of doing this that works just on the one and not individually on the 250 would be useful...!

OK - I will have a look at that. I guess it is possible as I could use a script to send the user to one layout if the email has not been sent and a different one if it has, but the xxx and yyy fields have not been completed. If anyone else has a really smart solution using privileges, you better be quick as I am about to use this one! Thanks for your help, transpower!!!

Hi, I am trying to set up a set of privileges and having problems. I have a database (FM 7; Mac OS X) that is used to prepare an order, which is then emailed to our finance dept. I have just two users - admin and someone else. I would like to give them permission to generate an order, and modify it to their hearts content until it has been emailed. This is all fine. However, after the email has been sent I would like them to be able to alter just two fields on the record, but not the rest of the record. This is where I have the problem. I have been able to set it up so that they can modify the record only when it meets one of the following criteria: 1. Has not yet been emailed 2. Field xxx is empty 3. Field yyy is empty Unfortunately this means that for 2 and 3, the rest of the record can be modified as well. Since they need to be able to modify the rest of the record prior to the email I cannot do it within the layout. So how do I give the user access to: 1. All fields on all orders not yet emailed. 2. Only fields xxx and yyy on the rest. Sorry if this is complex, and hope you can help! Thanks, Dave

You have been a fantastic help on this. I have set up the databases so that they have shorter keys with spaces in them - instead of "Grade2_PossGrade3" it is now "G2 PG3" - and it works! I also have the fields indexable (as I think I mentioned earlier) by scrapping the calculation and inserting the key as a calculation using a script, as suggested by Ray in his article. Thanks again for all of your help! Dave

I also suspect that it is nothing to do with the indexing problem. I have rejigged it so that the left hand side of the relationship is indexable, using a script to generate the result of the calculation. I still have exactly the same problem. However, it should not be to do with the length of the number - the choices I put in the previous post were all of the possibilities (well, missed out "Unknown"). Combined in a sort of square where the first and last part could be either of the eight options, the file C just has 64 records, and this is fixed. But all of the records that have "PossGradex", where x is just "1", "2" or "3" fail on the relationship lookup. Anyway, I am in the UK and am on my way home. Thanks for all of your help. Will check tomorrow to see if you have any more ideas. Dave

Thanks. I will go away and read that article. As you say, though I do not understand why it works for some of them and not others. My match field contains two parts. Each part can be either "OK", "Grade1", "Grade2", "Grade3", "PossGrade1", "PossGrade2" or "PossGrade3". So the entire field to be matched might be "OK_Grade3" or "PossGrade1_OK". Bizarrely, if the field contains one of the PossGrade parts it will not work, whether it is at the beginning or the end! If it just contains OK and the grade parts it works! And when it does have "PossGrade1_OK" it shows the GIF / record ID for the "Grade1_OK" record from file C i.e. it matches the WRONG record, not just no record! Anyway, I'll go away now and read my homework. Thanks for your help! Dave

Aaahh. My field in file A is not indexable. I guess this is a major problem? It is a calculation that depends on another calculation that depends on a related field. I guess from my 2 minutes of playing that I will not be able to index it because of that. How do I get round this one? Dave PS unbelievably quick response - thank you. This has been driving me nuts for ages!

Hi all, I have three files - call them A, B and C. C contains just four fields. Two text fields, a calculation field that is the concatenation of the first two text fields and a container with GIFs in it. B contains a whole heap of data. A has a relationship with B (this works fine). I then have a relationship between a calculated text field in A and the concatenated field in C in order to pull the GIFs from file C. Bizarrely for most values of A this works fine, but for some it does not! For some of the values in the calculated text field in A, it brings up the wrong GIF. I know that it is the matching of records that is at fault because I used the relationship to pull up the record ID of the matched record instead of the GIF and it pulls up the wrong one. Yet when I look at the text fields that it is supposed to be matching they are identical. So any idea why it might match some records correctly and not others? Is there by any chance enough information in the above for anyone to lend a hand? I am using FM Pro 6 on Mac OS X.3. Thanks, Dave

Hi, I have been using FM 6 for a while with relatively simple stuff, but am convinced that one of my ways of doing things is ham-fisted! I am using FM as a database for clinical data collected during a trial. We are collecting the same data on different days for each person. Up till now I have been using multiple different fields (e.g data1_time1, data1_time2 etc.). I am sure that within FM (using relationships? or repeating fields?) I could set this up more easily - especially as I have c. 30 data items over 17 time points. This means creating way too many fields! Importantly, I will want to export the data for analysis so that each item of data is in a separate column in a tab-delimited file. Also, can I have a layout for each time point in the "fancy" solutions to this problem? Can anyone help me out please? Thanks, Dave