CDR Tickets

BZDATETIME::2009-11-03 11:25:18
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::1

(In reply to comment #0)
> We will need to be able to generate electronic mailers from the CDR to update
> the Genetics Directory records. This can come after conversion and publishing,
> but I thought I would go ahead and put the issue in.

Does "... can come after conversion and publishing ..." mean "... must come after conversion and publishing ..."? Or should I go ahead and start working on this task now? This task and #4676 (add images to the summary mailers) are the only two tasks in my queue not currently blocked while I wait for testing/review/feedback from CIAT for the other tasks, and #4676 now has a lower priority than this one.

BZDATETIME::2009-11-03 12:57:02
BZCOMMENTOR::Margaret Beckwith
BZCOMMENT::2

It's fine with me if you work on this. My comment just meant that conversion and publishing come before this in terms of priority.

BZDATETIME::2009-11-06 17:43:46
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::3

Here's a mockup:

http://www.rksystems.com/cgsd.html

This is just a starting point, as there are obviously things wrong with it (like the Aspen email address), and we'll surely want to revisit wording, if not data collected and organization, but this should get us started thinking about everything we need to consider, from layout to content. For one thing, looking over the screen shot of the old mailer I finally figured out that what looked like a redundantly stored location was actually a distinction between the address we use to contact the GP versus the locations they want advertised in the directory for where they practice (which may or may not be the same). Don't think Sheri realized that when I asked her about this question. We may need to revisit the logic for how we're converting addresses for issue #4522.

BZDATETIME::2009-11-09 09:30:26
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::4

I have a fuzzy memory of a discussion in which it was said that we will not send out any more paper mailers for GPs, only electronic mailers. Do I remember correctly? What will we do about the GPs who were getting paper mailers? Just send them the electronic version and hope they'll do what we want? Talk to them first? I assume we'll at least have to talk to (or write to) the ones for which we don't have email addresses.

BZDATETIME::2009-11-09 09:53:37
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::5

I was all set to go putting new valid values in the mailer type list for the Mailer schema, so I can start in on the conversion of the mailer documents, and I see someone has beaten me to the punch. The available values are:

• Genetics Professional-Initial

• Genetics Profesional-Initial remail

• Genetics Professional-Annual update

• Genetics Professional-Annual remail

Unfortunately I don't see any clues in the genprof database which would help me identify which mailer events go with which mailer type. Can anyone at CIAT tell me what to look for? Or should I just add 'Genetics Professional-Legacy mailer' as a fifth value and use that for the converted mailer documents?

Also, what exactly is the difference between a mailer whose MailerTypeMode is 'Email' and one whose MailerTypeMode is 'Web-based'? We're calling these 'electronic mailers' (a.k.a. 'emailers') but the interface for updating the information is web-based.

Anyone object if I add the missing 's' in the second value above?

BZDATETIME::2009-11-09 10:05:21
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::6

I see that the contact email address for the old GP mailers is at aspensys.com. CIAT sent out a bunch of mailers shortly before we turned off the old system. Is it possible that we have a lot of replies aimed at aspensys (or lmco) mailboxes that went into a black hole? Or were provisions made to ensure that everything coming back is being collected and held pending implementation of the replacement system? (The cancer.gov pages point to genetics@cips.nci.nih.gov, and gives a different phone number – 301-402-6728 – than the one given on the sample emailer – (301) 402-6722.)

BZDATETIME::2009-11-09 11:33:01
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::7

See the last question in comment #142 of issue #4522.

BZDATETIME::2009-11-09 11:46:53
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::8

Oddly, the Mailer schema makes no provision for recording a general comment. By "general" I mean not connected with a Response block. This would mean that we'd be discarding all the comments recorded when GP mailers were sent out. Should I add an optional (multiply-occurring) Comment element to the Mailer schema at the top level?

BZDATETIME::2009-11-10 09:55:33
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::9

(In reply to comment #6)
> I see that the contact email address for the old GP mailers is at aspensys.com.
> CIAT sent out a bunch of mailers shortly before we turned off the old system.
> Is it possible that we have a lot of replies aimed at aspensys (or lmco)
> mailboxes that went into a black hole? Or were provisions made to ensure that
> everything coming back is being collected and held pending implementation of
> the replacement system? (The cancer.gov pages point to
> genetics@cips.nci.nih.gov, and gives a different phone number – 301-402-6728
> – than the one given on the sample emailer – (301) 402-6722.)

We made provisions for this. The emails are now forwarded to a Z-Tech mailbox.

BZDATETIME::2009-11-10 09:58:05
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::10

(In reply to comment #9)

> We made provisions for this. The emails are now forwarded to a Z-Tech mailbox.

Excellent! Is that the address which should go in the new emailers? If so, can you tell me what it is?

BZDATETIME::2009-11-10 11:22:40
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::11

(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
>
> > We made provisions for this. The emails are now forwarded to a Z-Tech mailbox.
>
> Excellent! Is that the address which should go in the new emailers? If so,
> can you tell me what it is?

I think the email address that should go on the emailers is the genetics@cips.nci.nih.gov and not the NCIGeneticsDirectory@icfi.com. All emails sent to genetics@cips.nci.nih.gov are forwarded to NCIGeneticsDirectory@icfi.com.

I am not sure about how the emailer system was setup. What I have known all along is that all emails were sent to the .gov email address and then forwarded to the aspensys.com email address. During the transition, arranged with the NCI heldpdesk to stop forwarding emails to the aspensys.com email address and start forwarding them to the icfi.com email, which has been happening.

Also, on October 13, I asked Patricia Dickey to forward all emails in the aspensys.com email to me since she was out on vacation just before the transition (and she did not transition with us). So we have all emails that were sent to that mailbox up to October 13. We also have all emails that were sent to the .gov mailbox from 9/25 to now. If any emails were sent to the aspensys.com email between October 13 and today, we do not have the email.

Yesterday, after our meeting, I emailed Patricia to see if she had received any emails since 10/13 but I never got a response back. I have contacted Kim to see if the mailbox had been turned off or not and whether there are any emails in them or not.

BZDATETIME::2009-11-10 11:28:50
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::12

(In reply to comment #11)

> I think the email address that should go on the emailers is the
> genetics@cips.nci.nih.gov ....

Thanks. I have plugged this address into the mockup.

http://www.rksystems.com/cgsd.html

BZDATETIME::2009-11-11 18:10:29
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::13

We heard back from Kim. She confirmed that the mailbox hosted at Lockheed has not been turned off. We will ask Lockheed to turn it off when our new mailer system is ready. Also, there was only one mail that had been received for which Z-Tech did not have.

BZDATETIME::2009-11-16 10:52:54
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::14

(In reply to comment #8)

> Should I add an optional (multiply-occurring) Comment element to the Mailer
> schema at the top level?

We decided in Thursday's status meeting to go ahead with this change. The modification has been installed on all three servers and the mailer history conversion code has been changed to insert the comment from the "send mailer" event in the new element.

BZDATETIME::2009-11-16 11:07:07
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::15

(In reply to comment #7)
> See the last question in comment #142 of issue #4522.

[From comment #143 of that issue]

> You're right; both records refer to the same person. It is noted in the
> comments of GP169 as "Duplicate of 312 therefore, post "NO" to WEB pad."

I have modified the mailer conversion software to fold mailers for GP 169
into the pile sent to GP 312.

>> For the GP6 mailer(s), should I just discard them, or should I create Mailer
>> documents anyway, leaving the Recipient and Document elements empty?
>
> Please create a mailer document.

Done.

> What is the consequence of not creating a mailer document at this time?
> Does it mean we will not be able to send any mailers in the future?

Who would you send it to? Since CIAT deleted the row for GP 6 from tblMain, no traces of him or her are left (unless you want to go back to tape backups and find it in an earlier copy of the database, which seems over-zealous).

BZDATETIME::2009-12-04 12:28:50
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::16

Next step is for Margaret to review the mockup and provide any appropriate feedback.

BZDATETIME::2009-12-08 13:28:30
BZCOMMENTOR::Margaret Beckwith
BZCOMMENT::17

I reviewed the mailer and gave Bob comments on a hard-copy.

BZDATETIME::2009-12-09 13:56:30
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::18

(In reply to comment #17)
> I reviewed the mailer and gave Bob comments on a hard-copy.

Here's a summary of the modifications indicated in that marked-up copy.

[ ] Capitalize "Web" in the first sentence of the Introduction
[ ] Change email address in second paragraph to GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov
[ ] Change second sentence of 1. Contact Information to "This address is
used to contact you for data verification purposes. It may be the same
as one of the ...." [wording change and split into two sentences]
[ ] Drop "Preferred contact method" field in 1. Contact Information block
[ ] Section 3: drop the word "all" from "... verify all information ..."
[ ] Section 4: drop the word "all" from "... verify all academic ..."
[ ] Section 5: drop the word "all" from "... verify all genetics ..."
[ ] Section 5: change column header "Board Year" to "Year Eligible"
[ ] The application form just has a free text box for specialties; we
may want to investigate having that form be data-driven
[ ] Section 7: Add missing period after third paragraph.
[ ] Section 8: use CDR term documents for syndromes
[ ] Use GeneticsProfessionalDetails/AdministrativeInformation/Directory/Date
for determining anniversary on which to send first mailer (subsequent
mailers will be sent based on mailer history in the publication tables)
[ ] Talk about whether to support generation of a GP mailer by hand

BZDATETIME::2009-12-10 14:54:12
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::19

(In reply to comment #18)

> [x] Talk about whether to support generation of a GP mailer by hand

We decided in today's status meeting that we will implement this capability. If you disagree, Lakshmi, please let us know.

BZDATETIME::2009-12-17 09:33:36
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::20

Updated checklist:

[x] Capitalize "Web" in the first sentence of the Introduction
[x] Change email address in second paragraph to GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov
[x] Change second sentence of 1. Contact Information to "This address is
used to contact you for data verification purposes. It may be the same
as one of the ...." [wording change and split into two sentences]
[x] Drop "Preferred contact method" field in 1. Contact Information block
[x] Section 3: drop the word "all" from "... verify all information ..."
[x] Section 4: drop the word "all" from "... verify all academic ..."
[x] Section 5: drop the word "all" from "... verify all genetics ..."
[x] Section 5: change column header "Board Year" to "Year Eligible"
[ ] The application form just has a free text box for specialties; we
may want to investigate having that form be data-driven
[x] Section 7: Add missing period after third paragraph.
[x] Section 8: use CDR term documents for syndromes
[ ] Use GeneticsProfessionalDetails/AdministrativeInformation/Directory/Date
for determining anniversary on which to send first mailer (subsequent
mailers will be sent based on mailer history in the publication tables)
[x] Talk about whether to support generation of a GP mailer by hand

Note that the syndrome names are now longer (on average) than they used to be, so I dropped back to two columns in section 8.

Please verify changes in mockup:

http://www.rksystems.com/cgi-bin/cgsd.py

BZDATETIME::2009-12-22 17:15:15
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::21

The email address that should go on the Mailers is - GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov.

BZDATETIME::2009-12-23 14:01:39
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::22

(In reply to comment #20)

>
> Please verify changes in mockup:
>
> http://www.rksystems.com/cgi-bin/cgsd.py

Margaret,
Should the phone number listed on the mailer (301) 402-6722 be forwarded to Z-Tech? I called the number and it has Andrea's voice on it.

BZDATETIME::2009-12-23 14:58:09
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::23

(In reply to comment #20)
>
> Note that the syndrome names are now longer (on average) than they used to be,
> so I dropped back to two columns in section 8.
>
> Please verify changes in mockup:
>
> http://www.rksystems.com/cgi-bin/cgsd.py

It appears 'Carcinoid Syndrome' is repeated in Section 10.

BZDATETIME::2009-12-23 15:02:36
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::24

(In reply to comment #23)
> (In reply to comment #20)
> >
> > Note that the syndrome names are now longer (on average) than they used to be,
> > so I dropped back to two columns in section 8.
> >
> > Please verify changes in mockup:
> >
> > http://www.rksystems.com/cgi-bin/cgsd.py
>
> It appears 'Carcinoid Syndrome' is repeated in Section 10.

Sorry, it is Section 8, not Section 10.

BZDATETIME::2009-12-23 15:11:22
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::25

(In reply to comment #24)

> > It appears 'Carcinoid Syndrome' is repeated in Section 10.
>
> Sorry, it is Section 8, not Section 10.

That's because both CDR618606 and CDR654588 have that same GP menu information.

BZDATETIME::2009-12-24 11:25:25
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::26

For the mailer conversion, in addition to creating Mailer tracking documents, we also need to populate the pub_proc and pub_proc_doc tables. I am considering inserting the rows in these tables directly, rather than go through the CdrPublish command, which runs the risk of having the publishing system pick up the jobs as ready to process during the (very small) window before the status gets set to 'Success'; also, I plan to collect all mailers of a given flavor (email or paper) marked as having gone out in a batch on a given day and put them in the same row in the pub_proc table, using the earliest time as the value of the 'started' column and the latest time for the 'completed' column. Anyone see any problems with what I'm considering?

Also, I don't see any responses to my questions in comment #5.

BZDATETIME::2009-12-28 13:33:14
BZCOMMENTOR::Margaret Beckwith
BZCOMMENT::27

1. I am okay with what you propose in terms of putting the hard copy mailer and emailer information together to determine next mailer date.
2. I also think it is fine to label all of the mailer history as "legacy" instead of trying to determine which type of mailer it was (reply to comment 5). It would be good to get confirmation from Lakshmi on these.

3. I don't understand the reason for the duplication of Cowden syndrome. The menu information in the two records you mention is different. One is for Cowden syndrome and the other is for Carney syndrome.

(> > > It appears 'Carcinoid Syndrome' is repeated in Section 10.
> >
> > Sorry, it is Section 8, not Section 10.
> That's because both CDR618606 and CDR654588 have that same GP menu information.

BZDATETIME::2009-12-28 14:00:04
BZCOMMENTOR::Margaret Beckwith
BZCOMMENT::28

Whoops! Now I have really complicated things. The menu information in one of the records is for Carcinoid syndrome CDR618606 (not Cowden) and the other is for Carney syndrome CDR654588.

BZDATETIME::2009-12-28 14:08:02
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::29

I had a typo in one of the CDR IDs for Carcinoid syndrome. They are CDR618606 and CDR654587 (not CDR654588).

BZDATETIME::2009-12-28 14:38:36
BZCOMMENTOR::Margaret Beckwith
BZCOMMENT::30

I have asked Mary to remove the menu information from one of the records.

BZDATETIME::2009-12-28 15:44:55
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::31

(In reply to comment #30)
> I have asked Mary to remove the menu information from one of the records.

The mailer displays the correct information. Carcinoid Syndrome is no longer repeated.

BZDATETIME::2009-12-31 10:03:01
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::32

William:

I've stumbled onto a thorny puzzle in my work converting the GP mailers. I had assumed that the _E and _M suffixes on the event type values reflected the nature of the mailer involved, and that I could use this information to make sure I wasn't pairing a response to one kind of mailer with a mailer of the other kind, just because the other mailer was sent out later (as might happen if, for example, a paper mailer was sent out followed a few days later by an electronic mailer, and then the user replied to the paper mailer instead of the electronic one). But the data calls this assumption into question. Look, for example, at the mailer history for Patrick M. MacLeod (GP 296):

296 Verf_Sent_M 2002-06-03 09:51:46.000 Sent as part of a batch
296 Verf_Received_M 2002-06-24 15:14:06.000 Checked-in without changes
296 Verf_Sent_M 2003-08-01 13:05:05.000 Sent as part of a batch
296 Verf_Received_M 2003-08-29 07:38:02.000 Checked-in without changes
296 Verf_Sent_M 2004-08-02 09:22:31.000 Sent as part of a batch
296 Verf_Sent_M 2004-11-01 09:34:10.000 Sent as part of a batch
296 Verf_Received_M 2004-11-18 15:19:22.000 Checked-in without changes
296 Verf_Sent_M 2005-10-03 08:13:08.000 Sent as part of a batch
296 Verf_Sent_M 2006-01-03 07:54:43.000 Sent as part of a batch
296 Verf_Received_M 2006-02-06 08:58:29.000 Checked-in with changes
296 Verf_Sent_M 2006-11-01 14:42:36.000 Sent as part of a batch
296 Verf_Received_M 2006-11-28 14:21:05.000 Checked-in without changes
296 Verf_Received_E 2007-12-05 14:48:28.000 Checked-in without changes
296 Verf_Sent_M 2008-11-04 07:40:43.000 Sent as part of a batch
296 Verf_Received_E 2009-06-09 17:17:05.000 Checked-in without changes

Notice that there are a couple of responses marked "_E" which don't have corresponding electronic mailers. Can you explain what's going on here? Does "Verf_Received_E" mean that we sent them a paper mailer but they responded by email? Or did some electronic mailers fail to be recorded? Or is there some third explanation?

BZDATETIME::2009-12-31 13:15:27
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::33

In a (sort-of) related question, some of the mailers that are recorded in the genprof database have more than one response. Should I alter the Mailer schema to allow for recording all of the responses without invalidating the tracking document? Or should I just pick one of the responses to record? If the latter, should I record the first response? The last response? Pick one at random? Or should I record them all but not worry about the validity of the documents (or changing the schema)?

BZDATETIME::2010-01-04 07:12:45
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::34

(In reply to comment #32)

>
> Notice that there are a couple of responses marked "_E" which don't have
> corresponding electronic mailers. Can you explain what's going on here? Does
> "Verf_Received_E" mean that we sent them a paper mailer but they responded by
> email? Or did some electronic mailers fail to be recorded? Or is there some
> third explanation?

I will ask Patricia at Lockheed about this and post the response.

(In reply to comment #33)
> In a (sort-of) related question, some of the mailers that are recorded in the
> genprof database have more than one response. Should I alter the Mailer schema
> to allow for recording all of the responses without invalidating the tracking
> document?

I will go with the above suggestion. May be Margaret and Lakshmi will like to weigh in?

>Or should I just pick one of the responses to record? If the
> latter, should I record the first response? The last response? Pick one at
> random? Or should I record them all but not worry about the validity of the
> documents (or changing the schema)?

BZDATETIME::2010-01-05 10:56:25
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::35

(In reply to comment #34)
> (In reply to comment #32)
>
> >
> > Notice that there are a couple of responses marked "_E" which don't have
> > corresponding electronic mailers. Can you explain what's going on here? Does
> > "Verf_Received_E" mean that we sent them a paper mailer but they responded by
> > email? Or did some electronic mailers fail to be recorded? Or is there some
> > third explanation?
>
> I will ask Patricia at Lockheed about this and post the response.
>
> (In reply to comment #33)

I spoke with Patricia this morning (she was not in the office yesterday). I did not get a definite answer as to why there are these discrepancies but I concluded that these discrepancies happened due to a combination of user data entry errors and practices that were not streamlined. When the mailers are received, she checks them in manually so there is room for human errors. She also gave me a few scenarios where there might be changes in the way mailers were checked in.

1. Sometimes, a paper mailer would be returned undeliverable (Return to sender). She will then search for an email address and sends an electronic mailer or an email. When the email is received, she could check it in as a response to the mailer. This explanation does not answer your question but I am wondering if the system records every instance of mailer generation especially when it is generated as a re-mail in addition to the paper mailer that was returned to sender?

2. The other scenario is a paper mailer is sent out but the person responds either by email or mailer and requests to be sent electronic mailer.

3. When the recipient of the mailer makes a phone call in response to either a paper mailer or electronic mailer that was sent about a year earlier. From experience, recipients would not respond to mailers until there are changes they have to report.
A combination of all of the above could explain why there are discrepancies. Besides, there was not standard way of tracking these changes. Going forward, we will standardize a lot of these things to avoid any confusion in the future. I also think that keeping all the records as you suggested in comment #33 would be important in case something else comes up in the future.

BZDATETIME::2010-01-05 11:35:43
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::36

Hmm, sounds like a mess. At this point, I'm inclined to ignore the distinction between paper and electronic mailers and responses, and just hook up the responses to the latest mailer to the individual regardless of which flavor it was, unless there are objections to this approach.

BZDATETIME::2010-01-05 12:24:46
BZCOMMENTOR::Margaret Beckwith
BZCOMMENT::37

I think if we could record all of responses associated with each individual it would be good. We don't have to designate them as a particular type of mailer, but I think having the reponses would be helpful.

Also, there was a question about the phone number which we still need to answer: Margaret,
Should the phone number listed on the mailer (301) 402-6722 be forwarded to
Z-Tech? I called the number and it has Andrea's voice on it.

It should definitely be forwarded to Z-Tech. We should talk about how to coordinate it (or whether to) with the other PDQ Help numbers we have.

BZDATETIME::2010-01-20 16:40:03
BZCOMMENTOR::Margaret Beckwith
BZCOMMENT::38

On the application form and the search form, we are taking the phone number off altogether so we can probably not include it on the mailer. We are directing all inquiries and problems to the email GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov.

BZDATETIME::2010-03-18 16:09:28
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::39

Per our discussion this afternoon, Bob will set up the mailer system so that when we receive updates from the professionals, they will be forwarded to this mailbox at Z-Tech- NCIGENETICSDIRECTORY@ICFI.COM

I spoke with our support team regarding the forwarding of emails to individuals and they had another solution of having us view two outlook profiles at the same time. That will solve the problem of forwarding the emails to our individual mailboxes.

BZDATETIME::2010-03-19 22:36:02
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::40

There are still some tasks yet to be completed for this issue, but I believe enough of the software is in place that it would be reasonable for Margaret and CIAT to begin testing in earnest. Here's what I've done so far:

[x] The legacy mailers have been converted on Franck
[x] The admin interface for creating mailer jobs is on Franck
[x] The new publishing subsets have been added to the pub control doc
[x] The batch job to process queued GP emailer jobs has been implemented
[x] The software to package picklist values is done
[x] The software to import GP emailers on Verdi is completed
[x] The cron job to run this import program has been installed
[x] The software to display the emailer form is written and on Verdi
[x] The software to save changes and notify CIAT is on Verdi
[x] An interface to see which GP emailers have been sent is on Verdi [1]
[x] A script to view the differences in a changed mailer has been written [2]

Still to be done:

[ ] Email message sent to GP when emailer is loaded
[ ] Interface for marking bounces
[ ] Prevent access to mailer once it has been submitted by the GP

Testing should include:

[ ] Confirmation that legacy mailer conversion is correct
[ ] Ensuring that the selection criteria are working properly
[ ] Making sure the emailer form works as it should
[ ] Making sure changes are captured and displayed correctly
[ ] Notification is sent to CIAT when GP submits emailer (w/wo changes)

I have been limiting jobs to five or ten documents at a time, so that there will be plenty of opportunity for testing repeatedly before running into a condition where no documents meet the criteria for selection (except when testing the option of identifying a single GP Person document by ID). The only mailer type which is testable right now would be the Genetics Professional-Annual update, until you add some new GP documents for which Initials can be sent (because there will be no mailer history for them). Remailer testing will have to wait until some time has passed since the initials and updates have gone out. For now I've set the cron job for importing new emailers in the emailer server's database to run every ten minutes, so you won't have to wait so long while we're testing. When we go into production we'll throttle that back to once each night as we do for the other emailers.

[1] http://verdi.nci.nih.gov/u/ListGPEmailers
[2] Accessible as links from ListGPEmailers and from the CIAT email notification

BZDATETIME::2010-03-22 14:58:49
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::41

(In reply to comment #40)

> Still to be done:
>
> [x] Email message sent to GP when emailer is loaded

This has been implemented, except that instead of sending the email message to the actual email address for the GP, the software sends the messages to a list of testers. That list currently includes my email address and William's. If Margaret and/or Lakshmi would like to be included (at least temporarily), please let me know. Also, for now the email message's subject line is prefixed with the string "[TEST] ". Please review the message and let me know what changes need to be made to the message body and/or subject line.

> [x] Interface for marking bounces

http://verdi.nci.nih.gov/u/ListGPEmailers has been modified to include links to mark an emailer as having bounced.

> [x] Prevent access to mailer once it has been submitted by the GP

This is done as well, and I extended it to handle bounces also.

BZDATETIME::2010-03-23 11:25:00
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::42

I have started testing the mailers. Here are my initial observations:

1. We are no longer sending out paper mailers so it seems we should not be making a difference between contact information and practice location. I assume that if the way the mailer is currently we will be maintaining the contact address information but it will not be used for anything else. We need only the phone number and email address in the contact information.

2. It looks like middle initials are not displayed in the mailers.

3. The notification email that CIAT receives includes the mailer ID. Could you also include the CDR ID of the Gen. Prof. Document in text of the email?

4. The Mailer lists the PDQ phone number. We have agreed that it should not be included.

I will continue to test..

BZDATETIME::2010-03-23 11:44:40
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::43

(In reply to comment #42)
> I have started testing the mailers. Here are my initial observations:
>
> 1. We are no longer sending out paper mailers so it seems we should not be
> making a difference between contact information and practice location. I assume
> that if the way the mailer is currently we will be maintaining the contact
> address information but it will not be used for anything else. We need only
> the phone number and email address in the contact information.

I'll wait until we can get input from ICRDB before ripping out support for maintaining the other ways to reach the GP in the event that the phone number and email address are obsolete. There were no comments along these lines when the mockup was being reviewed.

> 2. It looks like middle initials are not displayed in the mailers.

Example, please.

> 3. The notification email that CIAT receives includes the mailer ID. Could you
> also include the CDR ID of the Gen. Prof. Document in text of the email?

Done.

> 4. The Mailer lists the PDQ phone number. We have agreed that it should not be
> included.

Removed.

BZDATETIME::2010-03-23 11:51:26
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::44

(In reply to comment #43)

> > 2. It looks like middle initials are not displayed in the mailers.
>
> Example, please.
>
CDR1558
CDR3766
CDR4946
CDR7104

BZDATETIME::2010-03-23 13:10:37
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::45

(In reply to comment #44)
> (In reply to comment #43)
>
> > > 2. It looks like middle initials are not displayed in the mailers.
> >
> > Example, please.
> >
> CDR1558
> CDR3766
> CDR4946
> CDR7104

Thanks. That bug has been fixed.

BZDATETIME::2010-03-23 17:03:44
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::46

I added the Person ID to the notification sent to CIAT when no changes are made.

BZDATETIME::2010-03-24 14:50:45
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::47

I see that inactive records (Include in Directory = 'Do not include') are on the mailer list but I am not sure if you included them for test purposes only? I assume they should not be receiving mailer.

Examples:
664614
664599

BZDATETIME::2010-03-24 15:10:04
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::48

I see the flag which can be switched back and forth between "Include" and "Do not include" as orthogonal to the question of whether the information is correct or not. I can skip over the ones with "Do not include" if you prefer.

BZDATETIME::2010-03-24 15:14:09
BZCOMMENTOR::Margaret Beckwith
BZCOMMENT::49

If I am understanding the comments, then I agree that we don't need to send mailers to people who are not included in the directory.

BZDATETIME::2010-03-24 15:50:24
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::50

I have changed the mailer request script to skip over GPs who are not included in the directory on Cancer.gov at the time the mailer is generated (doesn't affect the selection for remailers directly, since that logic is buried in a general-purpose module which looks for mailers sent out recently for which we've waited too long without a reply; presumably the logic for selecting the first mailer will indirectly control the selection for the remailer). You'll see a couple of mailers from my before/after testing which picked up "Do not include" GPs, but subsequent testing should skip them.

BZDATETIME::2010-03-25 10:53:59
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::51

(In reply to comment #40)
> There are still some tasks yet to be completed for this issue, but I believe
> enough of the software is in place that it would be reasonable for Margaret and
> CIAT to begin testing in earnest. Here's what I've done so far:
>
> [x] The legacy mailers have been converted on Franck
> [x] The admin interface for creating mailer jobs is on Franck

Could we have a Pre-Mailer Check for Genetics records? This will identify all active records that are ready to receive mailers but:

1. do not have email address (or valid email address)
2. or do not have a GPMailer attribute

BZDATETIME::2010-03-26 11:26:03
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::52

For the Syndromes, Neurofibromatosis 1 (CDR42845)is not checked in the mailer even if it is selected in the CDR record.
Examples:

CDR14505 - mailer # 672757
CDR664696 - Mailer # 672758

BZDATETIME::2010-03-26 14:51:38
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::53

(In reply to comment #52)
> For the Syndromes, Neurofibromatosis 1 (CDR42845)is not checked in the mailer
> even if it is selected in the CDR record.
> Examples:
>
> CDR14505 - mailer # 672757
> CDR664696 - Mailer # 672758

I think it will work correctly if you take the trailing newline out of the value for the MenuItem/DisplayName element in CDR42845.

BZDATETIME::2010-03-26 17:20:34
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::54

(In reply to comment #53)
> (In reply to comment #52)
> > For the Syndromes, Neurofibromatosis 1 (CDR42845)is not checked in the mailer
> > even if it is selected in the CDR record.
> > Examples:
> >
> > CDR14505 - mailer # 672757
> > CDR664696 - Mailer # 672758
>
> I think it will work correctly if you take the trailing newline out of the
> value for the MenuItem/DisplayName element in CDR42845.

That is right. I found additional syndromes that had the same problem and they all had trailing spaces. I fixed them and ran another mailer job and they are all fine now.

The Phone number is still on the form. Also, the last line of the mailer confirmation page states that there is a link to the view the job status but no link is provided. Please see below:*****

Job Number 8177 Submitted
Mailer type = Genetics Professional-Annual update

Number of documents to be mailed = 5

***Use this link to view job status. ***

Everything seems to work fine but I will do additional testing next week before this is promoted.

BZDATETIME::2010-03-26 18:58:08
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::55

(In reply to comment #54)

> The Phone number is still on the form.

Right, I had taken it off the mailer as requested, but not the form. I've removed it from the form as well now.

> Also, the last line of the mailer confirmation page states that there
> is a link to the view the job status but no link is provided. ...

Check to see if "this link" isn't actually a hyperlink (works like that for all the mailer request forms.

BZDATETIME::2010-03-30 10:31:52
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::56

(In reply to comment #51)

> Could we have a Pre-Mailer Check for Genetics records?

Done. It's only available for initial and annual mailers, not for the remailers (which piggyback on the other two types). On Franck, ready for testing.

BZDATETIME::2010-03-30 12:00:28
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::57

At last week's meeting the question was raised about whether we should require phone numbers in the locations published to the Cancer.gov GP directory. Here are the GPs whose Include flag is set for the directory and which have at least one location which doesn't have a non-restricted phone number (where "non-restricted" means lacking the Public='No' flag) directly in the Person document:

CDR7295 (Chouinard, Edmond Emilien;Cambridge;Ontario) [2 such locations]
CDR19803 (MacLeod, Patrick;Victoria;British Columbia)
CDR19842 (Green, Andrew;Dublin;Ireland)
CDR330334 (Grady, Ian;Redding;California)
CDR664814 (Gilani, Shahid;Oman;Sultanate of Oman)

BZDATETIME::2010-04-01 12:02:29
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::58

(In reply to comment #57)
> At last week's meeting the question was raised about whether we should require
> phone numbers in the locations published to the Cancer.gov GP directory. Here
> are the GPs whose Include flag is set for the directory and which have at least
> one location which doesn't have a non-restricted phone number (where
> "non-restricted" means lacking the Public='No' flag) directly in the Person
> document:
>
> CDR7295 (Chouinard, Edmond Emilien;Cambridge;Ontario) [2 such locations]
> CDR19803 (MacLeod, Patrick;Victoria;British Columbia)
> CDR19842 (Green, Andrew;Dublin;Ireland)
> CDR330334 (Grady, Ian;Redding;California)
> CDR664814 (Gilani, Shahid;Oman;Sultanate of Oman)

We will fix these records so that the phone numbers are not marked as Not public.

BZDATETIME::2010-04-06 13:35:56
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::59

The emails (to the professional & to CIAT) come from pdqupdate. Could you change it so that they come from GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov ?

BZDATETIME::2010-04-06 14:12:41
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::60

(In reply to comment #59)
> The emails (to the professional & to CIAT) come from pdqupdate. Could you
> change it so that they come from GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov ?

Done.

BZDATETIME::2010-04-07 12:57:52
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::61

(In reply to comment #60)
> (In reply to comment #59)
> > The emails (to the professional & to CIAT) come from pdqupdate. Could you
> > change it so that they come from GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov ?
>
> Done.

The email to CIAT still comes from pdqupdate. But the one to the professionals comes from GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov.

May be we can discuss the following two issues on Thursday:

1.Can we make some of the fields in the mailer required? The phone number and the email address at the contact level should be required so that it will not be possible to submit the form without data in those fields. They need the phone number in order to remain listed and we need the email address in order to contact them.

2.Since we ‘standardized’ the organization names for most of the documents, most of the professionals are going to see some changes to the organization names in their records. Can we include a little note in the Mailer to that effect?

BZDATETIME::2010-04-07 13:23:13
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::62

(In reply to comment #61)

> The email to CIAT still comes from pdqupdate.

Fixed on Verdi.

BZDATETIME::2010-04-15 10:01:41
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::63

(In reply to comment #55)
> (In reply to comment #54)
> > Also, the last line of the mailer confirmation page states that there
> > is a link to the view the job status but no link is provided. ...
>
> Check to see if "this link" isn't actually a hyperlink (works like that for all
> the mailer request forms.

Please underline 'this link' to make it clearer that it is a link.

Also,
When I am notified by email that the job is completed and I click on the link provided in the email. The messages appear to always display "Processed 0 mailers' when in fact mailers have been processed. For example:

Publishing System: Mailers
System Subset: Genetics Professional-Annual update [Job settings ]
User Name: woseipoku
Output Location: d:/cdr/mailers/output/Job8192
Started: 2010-04-15 09:19:35
Completed: 2010-04-15 09:20:28
Status: Success
Messages: Processed 0 mailers

In the above example, two mailers were successfully processed.

BZDATETIME::2010-04-15 10:35:30
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::64

(In reply to comment #63)

> Please underline 'this link' to make it clearer that it is a link.

Done.

> Also,
> When I am notified by email that the job is completed and I click on the link
> provided in the email. The messages appear to always display "Processed 0
> mailers' when in fact mailers have been processed. For example: ....

Fixed.

BZDATETIME::2010-04-26 16:39:02
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::65

(In reply to comment #64)
> (In reply to comment #63)
>
> > Please underline 'this link' to make it clearer that it is a link.
>
> Done.
>

I don't see the underline for 'this link'.

> > Also,
> > When I am notified by email that the job is completed and I click on the link
> > provided in the email. The messages appear to always display "Processed 0
> > mailers' when in fact mailers have been processed. For example: ....
>
> Fixed.

Verified. Thanks!

BZDATETIME::2010-04-26 20:52:34
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::66

(In reply to comment #65)

> I don't see the underline for 'this link'.

Should be on Franck now.

BZDATETIME::2010-04-27 11:03:06
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::67

(In reply to comment #66)
> (In reply to comment #65)
>
> > I don't see the underline for 'this link'.
>
> Should be on Franck now.

Verified. Thanks!
I have finished testing all the functions and features that are currently in place now and they all look good.

In previous discussions we decided to:
1. Make the phone# field under Practice locations required
2. Make the email field in the Contact Information block required.
3. Re-write the email message that the professionals receive.
4. Make changes to the submission buttons.
In my notes I have
-Update my record (to replace ‘Changes’)

• No changes (to replace ‘Unchanged’)

BZDATETIME::2010-05-03 16:07:13
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::68

(In reply to comment #67)

> In previous discussions we decided to:
> 1. Make the phone# field under Practice locations required
> 2. Make the email field in the Contact Information block required.
> 3. Re-write the email message that the professionals receive.
> 4. Make changes to the submission buttons.
> In my notes I have
> -Update my record (to replace ‘Changes’)
> - No changes (to replace ‘Unchanged’)

I have taken a stab at #1, #2, and #4 (will need input for #3). It's installed on Verdi. Please take it for a test drive and let me know if you run into any problems.

BZDATETIME::2010-05-04 11:22:55
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::69

(In reply to comment #68)
> (In reply to comment #67)
>
> > In previous discussions we decided to:
> > 1. Make the phone# field under Practice locations required
> > 2. Make the email field in the Contact Information block required.
> > 3. Re-write the email message that the professionals receive.
> > 4. Make changes to the submission buttons.
> > In my notes I have
> > -Update my record (to replace ‘Changes’)
> > - No changes (to replace ‘Unchanged’)
>
> I have taken a stab at #1, #2, and #4 (will need input for #3). It's installed
> on Verdi. Please take it for a test drive and let me know if you run into any
> problems.

The email address field accepts any number or format of character(s) that is/are entered, whether it is in email format or not. For example, if you enter 'g' alone, it accepts it. Is it possible to require that a valid email address in terms of the format is entered?

The phone number works the same as described above. However, I think if we can get the email address to be valid, we will have a means of contacting the professional in case an invalid phone number is entered. Also, since foreign phone numbers will have different formats, it may not be useful to require a particular format for phone numbers.

BZDATETIME::2010-05-04 13:29:50
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::70

(In reply to comment #69)

> Is it possible to require that a valid email address
> in terms of the format is entered?

Yes, though 'valid' has more than one possible meaning in this context. I decided against verifying that the domain actually represents a host registered with an MX record in DNS, and settled for using the same regular expression we use in the schema (which still isn't complex enough to handle all of the edge cases implied in the RFC). Please test.

BZDATETIME::2010-05-04 16:02:13
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::71

(In reply to comment #70)
> (In reply to comment #69)
>
> > Is it possible to require that a valid email address
> > in terms of the format is entered?
>
> Yes, though 'valid' has more than one possible meaning in this context. I
> decided against verifying that the domain actually represents a host registered
> with an MX record in DNS, and settled for using the same regular expression we
> use in the schema (which still isn't complex enough to handle all of the edge
> cases implied in the RFC). Please test.

Sure. That should be good enough. Thanks!

Meanwhile, I tested it and it works great. I think we are only left with # 3 and we will be good to promote to Bach.

BZDATETIME::2010-05-14 16:12:40
BZCOMMENTOR::Margaret Beckwith
BZCOMMENT::72

This document contains the text that will go with the emailer and contain the link for the person to update their record. It also contains the text that they will receive after they have submitted their mailer.

Attachment GeneticsDirectoryMailerEmailFinal.doc has been added with description: Genetics directory mailer email and submit response

BZDATETIME::2010-05-19 11:12:59
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::73

> Hello [Insert name]

What form of the name should we use?

> Is the Genetics mailer link going to expire?

We can make it expire (and probably should). You're probably not addressing that question to me, though.

I notice that you have a bulleted list in the message. Did you want the message to be sent with HTML formatting, or plain text (using asterisks for the bullets and whitespace for the list item indenting)?

BZDATETIME::2010-06-03 11:37:19
BZCOMMENTOR::Margaret Beckwith
BZCOMMENT::74

I think we answered all of these questions at our meeting in Lakshmi's office last week. Is there anything we need to be doing on this task?

BZDATETIME::2010-06-03 11:48:15
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::75

If you don't have a chance to record the decisions here in the issue I'll give it a shot myself when I get back to the task.

BZDATETIME::2010-06-03 12:03:44
BZCOMMENTOR::Margaret Beckwith
BZCOMMENT::76

(In reply to comment #73)
> > Hello [Insert name]
> What form of the name should we use?

I think we decided not to use names at all so we don't need the Hello. I will take a look at the text and make sure it still reads okay.

> > Is the Genetics mailer link going to expire?
> We can make it expire (and probably should). You're probably not addressing
> that question to me, though.

We decided that we will have the link expire; was it 30 days?

> I notice that you have a bulleted list in the message. Did you want the
> message to be sent with HTML formatting, or plain text (using asterisks for the
> bullets and whitespace for the list item indenting)?

We decided to go ahead with HTML since we didn't have trouble with it last time.

That's what I remember. Please correct if I got it wrong. Thanks.

BZDATETIME::2010-06-03 12:09:37
BZCOMMENTOR::Margaret Beckwith
BZCOMMENT::77

In looking at the text again, I do think we need some sort of greeting. Here are some possibilities:

1. Dear Sir or Madam
2. Dear Genetics Professional
3. Dear Member of the NCI Genetics Services Directory
4. Welcome to the NCI Genetics Services Directory update form

Other suggestions? I think I would vote for number 3.

BZDATETIME::2010-06-09 13:24:51
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::78

I'm implementing the most recent changes requested for this issue (I'm going with Margaret's option #3 from comment #77). I see that while the issue drifted onto a back burner Franck was refreshed, so I'll need to repeat some of the steps which had been checked off, including conversion of the legacy mailers on Franck and adding the new publishing subsets to the publishing control document. Ideally, I'd like to do these on both Franck and Bach (so that another refresh wouldn't set us back again), but I haven't yet seen the feedback from the review of the legacy mailer conversion (see testing steps enumerated in comment #40). What's the status on the progress of that review?

BZDATETIME::2010-06-09 14:20:14
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::79

(In reply to comment #78)
> control document. Ideally, I'd like to do these on both Franck and Bach (so
> that another refresh wouldn't set us back again), but I haven't yet seen the
> feedback from the review of the legacy mailer conversion (see testing steps
> enumerated in comment #40). What's the status on the progress of that review?

(In reply to comment #40)

> [ ] Confirmation that legacy mailer conversion is correct

Can you please elaborate on how to test that?

BZDATETIME::2010-06-09 15:37:51
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::80

(In reply to comment #79)

> > [ ] Confirmation that legacy mailer conversion is correct
>
> Can you please elaborate on how to test that?

Well, a minimum would be to look at some of the converted mailer documents and confirm that they pass validation and have the information you would expect for a mailer sent out from the old system. Bring up the CDR Search dialog box in CDR/XMetaL, set the document type to Mailer, put in "Genetics Professional-Legacy mailer" for the DocTitle field with the "Location of string" option set to "Anywhere in title"; you could also be more specific in your search, for example with "A%Genetics%Legacy mailer" and "Start of title" which would give you all the converted mailers for GPs whose surname starts with the letter A.

I would also hope that you'd spot-check to make sure that mailers you know went out from the old system were carried over into the CDR. In case the records of those mailers are lost, I've created an ad-hoc query on Mahler to peek inside the old genprof database to get a list of those mailers (look for the query "Legacy GP Mailers"). I've also created an ad-hoc query on Franck ("Converted Legacy GP Mailers") to make things even easier (but you should be able to find any mailers you need just using XMetaL; for example, I was able to find the very first mailer by putting "Roberts%2001-10-15%legacy" in the CDR Search DocTitle field, with "Start of title" for the "Location of string" option and "Mailer" in the "Document Type" field).

Let me know if you need any further assistance with this.

BZDATETIME::2010-06-10 11:31:44
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::81

(In reply to comment #77)
> ....
> 3. Dear Member of the NCI Genetics Services Directory
> ....
>
> Other suggestions? I think I would vote for number 3.

That's what I've used for folding in the wording from the attachment to comment #72. I have re-installed the changes to the mailer publishing control document and I performed the conversion of the legacy mailers on Franck, so you should be able to test again. Let me know if you need any other email addresses added to the list of addresses used for testing the mailers.

BZDATETIME::2010-06-10 13:14:02
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::82

(In reply to comment #77)
> In looking at the text again, I do think we need some sort of greeting. Here
> are some possibilities:
>
> 1. Dear Sir or Madam
> 2. Dear Genetics Professional
> 3. Dear Member of the NCI Genetics Services Directory
> 4. Welcome to the NCI Genetics Services Directory update form
>
> Other suggestions? I think I would vote for number 3.

Per MB: use "Dear Member of the NCI Cancer Genetics Service Directory" for the lead line.

BZDATETIME::2010-06-10 14:39:50
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::83

(In reply to comment #82)

> Per MB: use "Dear Member of the NCI Cancer Genetics Service Directory" for the
> lead line.

Modification installed on Verdi.

BZDATETIME::2010-06-10 14:41:24
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::84

I've added Margaret's email address to the list of test addresses.

BZDATETIME::2010-06-16 12:21:19
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::85

(In reply to comment #80)
> (In reply to comment #79)
>
> > > [ ] Confirmation that legacy mailer conversion is correct
> >
> > Can you please elaborate on how to test that?
>
> Well, a minimum would be to look at some of the converted mailer documents and
> confirm that they pass validation and have the information you would expect for
> a mailer sent out from the old system. Bring up the CDR Search dialog box in

Thanks for the explanation.
I have looked at several of the legacy mailer documents and they all look good and appear to have the needed information.

BZDATETIME::2010-06-16 12:27:24
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::86

Should I proceed, then, with running the legacy mailer conversion on the production system?

BZDATETIME::2010-06-16 12:34:10
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::87

(In reply to comment #86)
> Should I proceed, then, with running the legacy mailer conversion on the
> production system?

Yes. I believe it is OK to proceed with the next steps.

BZDATETIME::2010-06-16 15:16:07
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::88

The legacy mailers have been converted on Bach; please do a spot-check.

BZDATETIME::2010-06-16 16:21:48
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::89

(In reply to comment #88)
> The legacy mailers have been converted on Bach; please do a spot-check.

Done. They look good.

BZDATETIME::2010-06-17 18:24:51
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::90

> (In reply to comment #40)
line.
>
> > [x] Interface for marking bounces
>
> http://verdi.nci.nih.gov/u/ListGPEmailers has been modified to include links to
> mark an emailer as having bounced.
>
> > [x] Prevent access to mailer once it has been submitted by the GP
>
> This is done as well, and I extended it to handle bounces also.

1.Could you please add this (above link) to the CDR admin menu under Mailer Reports, if it is not somewhere already?

2.I was trying to test a case where a emailer will bounce by using a nonexistent or wrong email address but it did not work because of the way the system is set up for test purposes. So, if an email bounces, the returned email will go to the GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov, right?

3.The email text that goes with the mailer is signed off as "NCI Genetics Services Directory". Could you please change it so that it will read "NCI Cancer Genetics Services Directory" for consistency?

BZDATETIME::2010-06-18 11:20:37
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::91

(In reply to comment #90)

> 1.Could you please add this (above link) to the CDR admin menu under Mailer
> Reports, if it is not somewhere already?

Done.

> 2.I was trying to test a case where a emailer will bounce by using a
> nonexistent or wrong email address but it did not work because of the way the
> system is set up for test purposes. So, if an email bounces, the returned email
> will go to the GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov, right?

Let's test that. Set up a GP with the following email address:

klem@kadiddlehopper.org

and try sending an emailer to it.

> 3.The email text that goes with the mailer is signed off as "NCI Genetics
> Services Directory". Could you please change it so that it will read "NCI
> Cancer Genetics Services Directory" for consistency?

Sure. I'm just using what I was given originally. Instead of making lots of piecemeal changes, would it be possible to review all of the text so we can make all of the changes at once?

BZDATETIME::2010-06-18 13:32:57
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::92

(In reply to comment #91)
> (In reply to comment #90)
>
> > 1.Could you please add this (above link) to the CDR admin menu under Mailer
> > Reports, if it is not somewhere already?
>
> Done.
>
Verified. Thanks!

> > 2.I was trying to test a case where a emailer will bounce by using a
> > nonexistent or wrong email address but it did not work because of the way the
> > system is set up for test purposes. So, if an email bounces, the returned email
> > will go to the GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov, right?
>
> Let's test that. Set up a GP with the following email address:
>
> klem@kadiddlehopper.org
>
> and try sending an emailer to it.
>
Done!

> > 3.The email text that goes with the mailer is signed off as "NCI Genetics
> > Services Directory". Could you please change it so that it will read "NCI
> > Cancer Genetics Services Directory" for consistency?
>
> Sure. I'm just using what I was given originally. Instead of making lots of
> piecemeal changes, would it be possible to review all of the text so we can
> make all of the changes at once?

In this case, this is the only change that needs to be made.

BZDATETIME::2010-06-22 15:09:08
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::93

(In reply to comment #92)

> > > 2.I was trying to test a case where a emailer will bounce by using a
> > > nonexistent or wrong email address but it did not work because of the way the
> > > system is set up for test purposes. So, if an email bounces, the returned email
> > > will go to the GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov, right?
> >
> > Let's test that. Set up a GP with the following email address:
> >
> > klem@kadiddlehopper.org
> >
> > and try sending an emailer to it.
> >
> Done!
>

I added the email to 664758 (Janet Sue Rader) but have not seen a bounced email so far. I can see that (Janet Sue Rader) is listed on the report but with no indication that her email bounced back.

BZDATETIME::2010-06-22 17:22:45
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::94

So you're saying the bounce isn't ending up in the mailbox for GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov? I've sent a message to klem form my own server, with the GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov as the sender. Check and see if the bounce doesn't end up in that mailbox.

BZDATETIME::2010-06-22 17:29:06
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::95

(In reply to comment #94)
> So you're saying the bounce isn't ending up in the mailbox for
> GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov? I've sent a message to klem form my own server,
> with the GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov as the sender. Check and see if the
> bounce doesn't end up in that mailbox.

I do not have access to GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov. However, all emails to GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov are forwarded to us at NCIGeneticsDirectory@icfi.com. I have received all other Genetics testing emails so I am not sure about what is happening to this one. I will contact helpdesk tomorrow to see if there is a problem with the rules for the mailbox.

BZDATETIME::2010-06-24 10:52:56
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::96

Did you every get the bounce for the test message I sent?

BZDATETIME::2010-06-24 11:01:20
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::97

(In reply to comment #96)
> Did you every get the bounce for the test message I sent?

No. I submitted an online request to helpdesk to take a look at the forwarding rules again and also to provide me access to the mailbox. I will follow up today and let you know.

BZDATETIME::2010-06-28 13:53:59
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::98

I was able to get access to the mailbox today and saw where the mailer emails have been returned undeliverable. The problem is that such emails are not forwarded to us. I guess this is going to be a manual check for us. That is, whenever we send out mailers, we have to check the GeneticsDirectory mailbox to see if there are bounces.

BZDATETIME::2010-06-28 14:35:41
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::99

That's a problem we can't address ourselves. You'll have to work with the NIH help desk to get the forwarding to work correctly.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-01 12:19:23
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::100

(In reply to comment #99)
> That's a problem we can't address ourselves. You'll have to work with the NIH
> help desk to get the forwarding to work correctly.

I submitted a help desk ticket for this issue.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-02 10:12:43
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::101

This issue is ready to be promoted to Bach but I need to first go through the issue to make sure that all concerns or tasks have been addressed. I will do that and post a comment.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-07 15:14:44
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::102

The forwarding rules have been modified to also forward undeliverable messages. It looks like you need to make some changes for me to test it.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-07 15:15:51
BZCOMMENTOR::Margaret Beckwith
BZCOMMENT::103

In spite of having read through this multiple times, I did notice one tiny text correction that it would be nice to make. In the second paragraph at the top of the mailer it says:

If you have any questions, please send e-mail to GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov.

I think it would sound better to say "...please send an email..."

BZDATETIME::2010-07-07 15:24:21
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::104

(In reply to comment #102)

> The forwarding rules have been modified to also forward undeliverable messages.
> It looks like you need to make some changes for me to test it.

You can still use the back door I installed for this purpose, which sends the test message to the GP's email address if it is 'klem@kadiddlehopper.org'.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-07 15:25:08
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::105

(In reply to comment #103)

> I think it would sound better to say "...please send an email..."

I made the change (but also added the word "to" at the end).

BZDATETIME::2010-07-07 15:32:31
BZCOMMENTOR::Margaret Beckwith
BZCOMMENT::106

Better--thanks!

BZDATETIME::2010-07-07 16:27:58
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::107

(In reply to comment #104)
> (In reply to comment #102)
>
> > The forwarding rules have been modified to also forward undeliverable messages.
> > It looks like you need to make some changes for me to test it.
>
> You can still use the back door I installed for this purpose, which sends the
> test message to the GP's email address if it is 'klem@kadiddlehopper.org'.

I tested with two documents but never got the "undeliverable" email. I checked the mailbox for GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov and there is no bounced email. I submitted the last mailer job at about 3:50 PM.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-07 16:45:59
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::108

Please try again. I just added some extra logging to the utility which loads the new mailers.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-07 17:05:02
BZCOMMENTOR::Margaret Beckwith
BZCOMMENT::109

Should I see the text changes in the most recent test mailer (I just got about 10 seconds ago)? They aren't there..

BZDATETIME::2010-07-07 17:06:06
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::110

(In reply to comment #108)
> Please try again. I just added some extra logging to the utility which loads
> the new mailers.

I just submitted another mailer request.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-07 17:16:55
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::111

(In reply to comment #109)
> Should I see the text changes in the most recent test mailer (I just got about
> 10 seconds ago)? They aren't there..

Oh, you were talking about the web page? I thought you were talking about the email message that goes out, which had very similar language (but without the "to"). I've changed the web page now.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-07 17:24:25
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::112

(In reply to comment #110)
> (In reply to comment #108)
> > Please try again. I just added some extra logging to the utility which loads
> > the new mailers.
>
> I just submitted another mailer request.

The logs confirm that the email message is being sent to klem's address, which we know (from other tests) bounces. I just sent another message using my own server to klem, with GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov as the sender. Please check to see if the bounce shows up.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-07 17:32:19
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::113

Just did another test on verdi, with klem as the recipient and GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov as the sender. Nothing showing up?

BZDATETIME::2010-07-08 09:06:48
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::114

(In reply to comment #113)
> Just did another test on verdi, with klem as the recipient and
> GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov as the sender. Nothing showing up?

Nothing showed up. I also tested the rules by just sending an email with 'undeliverable' as the subject (which is one of the many ways we setup the rules), from my Z-Tech email account and it was forwarded correctly. I also sent another mailer request this morning with the 'Klem' email but nothing showed up.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-08 09:48:36
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::115

I am opening a ticket myself with the NIH IT support system. How can I get access to the GeneticsDirectory mailbox?

BZDATETIME::2010-07-08 12:21:34
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::116

(In reply to comment #115)
> I am opening a ticket myself with the NIH IT support system. How can I get
> access to the GeneticsDirectory mailbox?

NIH IT will have to give you access to the mailbox. In the meantime, I can login to the mailbox at the meeting today so that you can see how the rules have been set up.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-08 13:08:40
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::117

Apart from the bounced email forwarding issues that we are trying to solve, there was a decision to make the link to the professionals expire but I don't know if this has been implemented.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-08 13:51:51
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::118

(In reply to comment #117)
> Apart from the bounced email forwarding issues that we are trying to solve,
> there was a decision to make the link to the professionals expire but I don't
> know if this has been implemented.

I've been holding off on that feature in order to avoid making the testing of everything else harder to do.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-12 14:40:40
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::119

(In reply to comment #118)
> (In reply to comment #117)
> > Apart from the bounced email forwarding issues that we are trying to solve,
> > there was a decision to make the link to the professionals expire but I don't
> > know if this has been implemented.
>
> I've been holding off on that feature in order to avoid making the testing of
> everything else harder to do.

Implemented and installed on Verdi.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-13 08:54:12
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::120

[Offline email exchange]

[William to Bob]

Just to let you know that I received all the emails we tested after the meeting. I received them in the icfi.com mailbox which is setup to receive all the forwards. It looks like my account does not have the rights to setup a rule to forward to any other email apart from the icfi.com email.

[Bob to William]

I don't understand how the icfi.com mailbox got this one, since the message doesn't match any of the tests which trigger the rule to forward to you.

[William to Bob]

Forwarding to the icfi.com mailbox is the ‘primary’ rule in the cancer.gov mailbox; all emails that come into the cancer.gov mailbox are supposed to be forwarded to the icfi.com and that has been happening without a problem. However, it was not forwarding undeliverable messages for some reasons and so we added the ‘undeliverable’ rule so that all undeliverable messages will be forwarded as well but it seems not to be working as it should because we are not getting the undeliverable email from the Klem email.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-13 09:03:16
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::121

(In reply to comment #120)

> Forwarding to the icfi.com mailbox is the ‘primary’ rule in the cancer.gov
> mailbox; all emails that come into the cancer.gov mailbox are supposed to be
> forwarded to the icfi.com and that has been happening without a problem.

I'm a little confused by this. The rule you showed me yesterday appeared to be conditional (testing for specific words in the subject), but now you say that all messages are supposed to be forwarded to the icfi mailbox, regardless of what's in the subject. How is that?

> However, it was not forwarding undeliverable messages for some reasons and so
> we added the ‘undeliverable’ rule so that all undeliverable messages will be
> forwarded as well but it seems not to be working as it should because we are
> not getting the undeliverable email from the Klem email.

Is it possible that the cancer.gov mailbox is working correctly, but the icfi mail system is discarding the forwarded undeliverable messages?

Ovando (our current IT support guy) told Margaret a couple of days ago that he'd take care of getting me access to the GeneticsDirectory mailbox, but it hasn't happened yet. When it does I'll call back Mike Dorsey, who left me voice mail in response to the ticket I filed with the NIH support team on the forwarding failure.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-13 10:14:57
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::122

> Is it possible that the cancer.gov mailbox is working correctly, but the icfi
> mail system is discarding the forwarded undeliverable messages?
>
> Ovando (our current IT support guy) told Margaret a couple of days ago that
> he'd take care of getting me access to the GeneticsDirectory mailbox, but it
> hasn't happened yet. When it does I'll call back Mike Dorsey, who left me
> voice mail in response to the ticket I filed with the NIH support team on the
> forwarding failure.

I have been working with Ovando since last week to get it to work. He told me that the problem was that the 'Undeliverable' rule was conflicting with a server rule they had set already so he went ahead to remove the ‘Undeliverable’ rule and asked me to try it again. I ran another 'Klem' mailer job last Friday and this time the bounced email showed up in the cancer.gov mailbox but did not forward it to the icfi mailbox. I reported the findings to him on Friday and yesterday he left me a message to try it again. I will be testing it shortly to see if it works

BZDATETIME::2010-07-13 11:16:43
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::123

(In reply to comment #121)
> (In reply to comment #120)
> > However, it was not forwarding undeliverable messages for some reasons and so
> > we added the ‘undeliverable’ rule so that all undeliverable messages will be
> > forwarded as well but it seems not to be working as it should because we are
> > not getting the undeliverable email from the Klem email.
>
> Is it possible that the cancer.gov mailbox is working correctly, but the icfi
> mail system is discarding the forwarded undeliverable messages?
>
I ran another test submission this morning and the bounced email comes into the cancer.gov mailbxo but we never receive it in the icfi mailbox. I am going to ask our IT people here to look to see if the problem is on our side

BZDATETIME::2010-07-13 11:40:33
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::124

Ovando just came down to my office. I have asked him to change the server rule temporarily so that the messages are forwarded by my mailbox on my own server. If the forwarded non-delivery messages get through to my server we'll know it's an ifci problem.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-13 16:19:15
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::125

(In reply to comment #124)
> Ovando just came down to my office. I have asked him to change the server rule
> temporarily so that the messages are forwarded by my mailbox on my own server.
> If the forwarded non-delivery messages get through to my server we'll know it's
> an ifci problem.

I am not sure if Ovando has already changed the forwarding rules you mentioned above, but I just sent another test mailer job with the 'Klem' email.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-13 17:19:28
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::126

I'm still waiting to hear from Ovando.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-16 11:22:50
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::127

(In reply to comment #119)

> >
> > I've been holding off on that feature in order to avoid making the testing of
> > everything else harder to do.
>
> Implemented and installed on Verdi.

I have verified this enhancement. It's working correctly.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-16 11:24:42
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::128

At yesterday's meeting we decided to promote this issue to Bach. I will be checking the GeneticsDirectory@cancer.gov mailbox periodically to retrieve all bounced emails.

Please promote to Bach.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-16 11:31:28
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::129

It might be better to hold off on promoting this until after I return from vacation. Do you agree?

BZDATETIME::2010-07-16 11:54:29
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::130

(In reply to comment #129)
> It might be better to hold off on promoting this until after I return from
> vacation. Do you agree?

Yes. I agree.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-26 16:52:20
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::131

Here's a checklist of what needs to happen for promotion to production:

[ ] Check in latest GP Mailer changes to version control system
[ ] Install LoadGPEmailers script on Schubert
[ ] Remove test code from LoadGPEmailers script
[ ] take "[TEST] " out of subject
[ ] make "address = testers" line conditional (non-production only)
[ ] Add LoadGPEmailers script to emailers account cron job on Schubert
[ ] Drop cron cycle on Verdi from every 10 minutes to once a day
[ ] Create GP emailer tables on Schubert
[ ] gp_emailer_job
[ ] gp_emailer
[ ] gp_lookup_values
[ ] Install cgsd.py CGI script on Schubert
[ ] Install ShowGPChanges.py CGI script on Schubert
[ ] Install ListGPEmailers CGI script on Schubert
[ ] Install GPMailerReqForm.py CGI script on Bach
[ ] Install GetGPLookupValues.py CGI script on Bach
[ ] Install mailer request form in CDR Admin menus on Bach
[ ] Install new mailer types in publishing system on Bach
[ ] Create and populate CDR group "GP Mailers" on Bach
[ ] Promote changes to cdrmailers.py on Bach
[ ] Install /cdr/Mailers/GPMailers.py on Bach

Anyone think of anything I've forgotten? Want to do any test mailers on Bach before doing real ones? Even if you don't, I strongly recommend using the throttle mechanism to send out only a couple of mailers for the first job.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-26 17:02:26
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::132

Revised promotion checklist:

[ ] Check in latest GP Mailer changes to version control system
[ ] Install LoadGPEmailers script on Schubert
[ ] Install new CGSD banner image on Schubert
[ ] Remove test code from LoadGPEmailers script
[ ] take "[TEST] " out of subject
[ ] make "address = testers" line conditional (non-production only)
[ ] Add LoadGPEmailers script to emailers account cron job on Schubert
[ ] Drop cron cycle on Verdi from every 10 minutes to once a day
[ ] Create GP emailer tables on Schubert
[ ] gp_emailer_job
[ ] gp_emailer
[ ] gp_lookup_values
[ ] Install cgsd.py CGI script on Schubert
[ ] Install ShowGPChanges.py CGI script on Schubert
[ ] Install ListGPEmailers CGI script on Schubert
[ ] Install GPMailerReqForm.py CGI script on Bach
[ ] Install GetGPLookupValues.py CGI script on Bach
[ ] Install mailer request form in CDR Admin menus on Bach
[ ] Install new mailer types in publishing system on Bach
[ ] Create and populate CDR group "GP Mailers" on Bach
[ ] Promote changes to cdrmailers.py on Bach
[ ] Install /cdr/Mailers/GPMailers.py on Bach

BZDATETIME::2010-07-27 08:42:21
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::133

The GP mailer software has been installed in the production system. I /strongly/ recommend sending at least one mailer for a GP Person document whose GP contact email address has been set to your own address (you can always force a mailer to the real address once you have restored the document to its correct information, using the feature which allows you to enter a Person document ID in the GP mailer request interface), or if that is not feasible, to send a mailer to a GP whom you can contact directly to confirm that everything is working correctly.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-28 16:41:29
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::134

I assume the emails don't go out immediately to the professionals? I ran one mailer with my email address and it was successful but it's been a while and I have not received the email with the link to the mailer.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-28 16:46:03
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::135

(In reply to comment #134)
> I assume the emails don't go out immediately to the professionals? I ran one
> mailer with my email address and it was successful but it's been a while and I
> have not received the email with the link to the mailer.

Emailers in production are processed once a day. You don't really need the every-five-minutes processing I had set up for testing, do you?

BZDATETIME::2010-07-28 16:52:18
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::136

(In reply to comment #135)
> (In reply to comment #134)
> > I assume the emails don't go out immediately to the professionals? I ran one
> > mailer with my email address and it was successful but it's been a while and I
> > have not received the email with the link to the mailer.
>
> Emailers in production are processed once a day. You don't really need the
> every-five-minutes processing I had set up for testing, do you?

No. I just wanted to be sure.

Please promote the interface for marking bounces "GP Emailers List" to Bach.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-28 17:55:32
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::137

(In reply to comment #136)

> Please promote the interface for marking bounces "GP Emailers List" to Bach.

Done.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-28 19:25:21
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::138

(In reply to comment #137)
> (In reply to comment #136)
>
> > Please promote the interface for marking bounces "GP Emailers List" to Bach.
>
> Done.

Verified. Thanks!

BZDATETIME::2010-07-29 10:57:05
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::139

(In reply to comment #138)
> (In reply to comment #137)
> > (In reply to comment #136)
> >
> > > Please promote the interface for marking bounces "GP Emailers List" to Bach.
> >
> > Done.
>
> Verified. Thanks!

I am getting the following error when I try to access the report this morning. I was able to access it yesterday without a problem but no mailers had been received at that point.

"Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, root@imbncipe01.nci.nih.gov and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apache/2.2.3 (Red Hat) Server at 10.10.20.23 Port 80 "

BZDATETIME::2010-07-29 11:01:28
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::140

I received the mailer request I tested. I responded to it and we received the email that notifies us that a professional has responded to a mailer request. The link correctly showed the changes I made. So I think we are good to go. I am going to remove my email from the document I tested with and then force a mailer for this professional.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-29 11:29:35
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::141

(In reply to comment #139)

> I am getting the following error when I try to access the report this morning.
> I was able to access it yesterday without a problem but no mailers had been
> received at that point.

Problem fixed.

BZDATETIME::2010-07-29 11:38:31
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::142

(In reply to comment #141)
> (In reply to comment #139)
>
> > I am getting the following error when I try to access the report this morning.
> > I was able to access it yesterday without a problem but no mailers had been
> > received at that point.
>
> Problem fixed.

Verified. Thank you!

I am closing this issue.