developerWorks  >  Lotus  >  Forums & community  >  IBM Sametime Forum

IBM Sametime Forum


Sametime inbox awareness LiveNameUnresolvedCache.xml
Brian Wert 11/26/2013 03:55 PM
Sametime Standard 8.5.2 IFR1 Windows

We performed a sametime migration over the weekend. We switched from sametime using Domino directory to sametime using LDAP. The LDAP directory is still Domino.

Problem....The users were not showing the awareness icon next to the person's name in the inbox and NAB. This seemed to be caused by the default search filter in the stconfig.nsf.

The users logged into sametime fine and all buddy lists were converted.

We added (displayname=%s*) to the search filter and restarted the Sametime server.

Bigger problem...
The (displayname=%s*) seemed to fix the problem with only new emails from people within the company that did not have a previous message in the users inbox. Example, I sent an email to a user after I added the new search filter and restarted the server, that never received an email from me in the past and it showed the awareness icon. All other messages in the inbox had no status icon.

We found that the client builds 2 files.

All the names from messages in the inbox showed up in the LiveNameUnresolvedCache.xml file. We believe this is because the search filter lookup did not resolve the name until we put in the (displayname=%s*).

Now the frustration............ :-(
The fix is to delete the LiveNameResolvedCache.xml and LiveNameUnresolvedCache.xml files. These files are buried under the data directory. We have many users.
How do you automatically delete these files and why doesn't the client retry the names listed in these files?

This is a very poor solution and the fact that the default Sametime search filter and using Domino LDAP together with the default settings caused this whole mess is what makes me angry. Why did the name lookup fail in the first place. All pieces involved, Domino, Sametime, Domino LDAP are all IBM so couldn't they make this all work without me spending hours researching the problem and finding 1 post out on the internet showing what should be in the search string.

By the way... thank you to Klaus Bild for actually blogging about the search filter fix -->

Go back