Thanks David,I have tinkered with the target mappings and the composite
blacklist fields there but feel it's probably cleaner to use a
typology.I've ended up opting for a new typology which is just the
normal default typology plus a global blacklist exclusion. This will
ensure that the globally blacklisted records can never be sent out. If a
marketeer needs to send a service message out they can untick the
Exclude Recipients who no longer wish to be contacted box. This means
that the SMS and glo...
I appreciate the help.As mentioned I already have a typology solution
prepared which is similar to your one above, however it seems to me
there should be a better way to make this work without me having to
untick the 'Exclude Recipients who no longer wish to be contacted' box
as this is removing one of the safeguards preventing globally
blacklisted data from being sent out by marketeers.
Thanks for that.I've opted to build this in at a typology level rather
than at a workflow level but it seems counter intuitive that I can
disable only both global and channel level blacklists by default instead
of being able to disable only the channel level blacklist whilst still
applying the global level blacklist.
This is the correct answer.Once you've added the additional required
fields onto your extended delivery log schema you can then add these
into the target mapping as additional storage fields.Target Mappings >
Your mapping (most likely mapRecipient) > Mapping tab > storage tab >
map your fields in the 'additional data' section.
I'd like to find out where the channel level opt outs are being excluded
from a delivery, there doesn't seem to be a rule in the default typology
I am using yet they are taking place.We have a use case to allow
marketeers the ability to contact recipients who have opted out of SMS
(@blacklistmobile) with service or informational comms. However if they
are flagged as 'Do Not Contact by Any Channel' (@blacklist) they should
continue to be excluded.If I untick the blacklist option in the delivery
(...
mroshawVery little I'm afraid, as I understand Adobe will be pushing
out a fix to all classic users to enable TLS around August/September but
obviously that is some time away yet.I've escalated the issue and Adobe
proposed solution to my PM and am now awaiting further feedback. I
suspect we will either source some Adobe engineering resource or see if
we can postpone the TLS requirement until the Adobe release.
Hi Amit,Tech Ops seem to think that TLS is not an option? They have a
link to this thread with your advice on the SSL Certificate
configuration but have come back with the following;"As per them TLS is
not supported for SMPP. It is the way campaign is designed, that the
SMPP connector does not support TLS."Thoughts? As this is a fully hosted
solution I'm slightly at the mercy of the Tech Ops team.Amit
KumarAdhiyandaniell35335226Vipul Raghav
Thanks Amit,We are on v7, 8857 and have no access to the serverconf.xml.
So I'll need to raise a ticket to support for this. Do we then need to
apply the Default Configuration in the MX rules once this has been
completed by support or will it just work once the new port has been
applied to the external account?
Hi,We currently use an SMPP connection on port 8100, we have had a
requirement from our provider to transfer to an encrypted connection
which would be TLS 1.1 (or higher) on port 8143.How best to accomplish
this? Will modifying the MX rules to use TLS and changing the port be
enough or will there need to be some server side modification?Thanks in
advance
Hi Dan,Hope you and your projects are all good?Campaign optimisation
isn't being used. However I think I've narrowed it down to the target
mapping being used. The dimension of the delivery is based on a custom
table and it seems that due to the timings of various data loads that
there is often not a corresponding recipient record at the time of the
data selection and delivery. It should be able to be fixed by a more
rigorous query at the start of the campaign to ensure that all data
coming from ...
Hi Vipul,Thanks for the response. The data in the workflow doesn't
reference any tables or data outside of the targeting dimension.
Following your instructions I still have the 600+ records available
which were going into the delivery before.
Hi,I have a delivery where 600+ records are being passed through to the
delivery, yet only 361 records are being considered for delivery. The
lost records appear to be being removed before the default typology
rules are being applied. These lost records are not present in any
exclusion log like other records removed by typology rules. The only
place this action can be seen is in the delivery audit log.I'm unsure
what the (step: javascript/preTarget) actually refers to. I cannot see
anything in t...
Thanks Amit - as ever your knowledge is gratefully received On a
slightly related note, do you happen to know the process which is being
run by this process and if it is possible to call from code rather than
the several layers of GUI needed to navigate ATM?
Thanks Amit. Running that process didn't change my tracking log table
but it did appear to fix my consolidated table which is now reporting
the lower clicks I was expecting/hoping to see.
Hi JSB,Thanks for the reply. The campaign in question was sent out
within the last two weeks and the purge values all seem to be standard.
What would be the next steps in checking the technical process -
considering the environment I'm currently accessing is Adobe hosted.I'm
slightly confused as to what could be throwing off the figures as surely
the consolidated table is an aggregation of the tracking
table/s.RegardsAlistair
Amit_KumarAny thoughts? To clarify I have extracted a campaign with a
single delivery and have used the delivery id from both the consolidated
tracking table and recipient tracking logs to make sure that I'm not
double counting instances where a URL may have been used across multiple
campaigns/deliveries.
I have extracted the figures for a single campaign from both of the
above tables and was surprised to see that the Consolidated Tracking
table is reporting click figures quite a lot higher than those found in
the Recipient Tracking Log.Is there any reason why this is the case?
Hi Amit,I didn't delve too far into the details other than fulfilling
the use case requirements which was asking for exported files to have
UTF-8 encoding with the UNIX LF line ending required for import into
another tool. In practicality it probably makes little to no difference
CheersAlistair
Hi Amit,So the option you show seemed to export out in the windows
format which is CRLF, instead of the required UNIX format which requires
only LF. However exporting out simply as CR with Latin encoding seemed
to export out with only a LF end character (which seems odd but it is
Adobe Campaign after all).The best solution for me was to export out as
UTF-8 encoding with the CR line end as this fulfilled two use cases I
needed to satisfy. Thanks for the response!
I need to export data out in the unix format of only having a line feed
at the end of each line rather than the windows format of carriage
return + line feed. How would I go about do this?
Hi J-Serge,Thanks for this - it's very helpful. What would be the other
ctx variables you would use for these reports? Global is fairly obvious,
what parameters would you use to pull a campaign level report or a
delivery level report? Would the correct parameter for these be an exact
copy of the selection type (Single-selection etc...) or something
different.This is of course assuming that your report is set up to allow
this level of reporting.Thanks!
Hi Amit,That's perfect, thanks for the insight. I was trying to update
the table directly. It didn't occur to me to try to add new records via
the folder form...Hope you are well since we last spoke!
Hi Vipul,That's all fine thanks. I actually used my brain and solved it
:). I did have another question on how best to interrogate the received
split array but I've put together an inelegant solution which does the
trick.Appreciate all your help.
Hi Vipul,Thanks for your patience here. That code is working (apart from
one thing I will mention at the end);// Define Delivery Variable var
query = xtk.queryDef.create(
); var resultSet = query.ExecuteQuery(); for each (var row in
resultSet) { vars.myVar = row.@id; logInfo(vars.myVar); } //Pass through
Variable xtk.workflow.PostEvent('WKF129','signal','', ,false)It logs the following two Delivery IDs.
These are correct. In my signal workflow I have the JS script;// Split
Variable var my...
That is helpful.I haven't come across a JS split function in Campaign
yet. Is there an example I can reference?That where clause still seems
to be failing
