GP emails random RM statements

Question Status

Unanswered
Riaan Taljaard asked a question on 18 Jan 2017 2:30 AM

Hi there

I have a client who are currently on GP 2015 R2. For the last 2 months they have encountered an issue where they do a monthly statement run and in between the hundreds of emailed statements there are some which have generated random data. The statement run for example was for December and a few statements are for May, a few for October etc.

When they generate the statements to screen first the data is correct.

Has anyone encountered this?

Reply
Leslie Vail responded on 21 Jan 2017 4:12 PM

I know this isn't any help, but I have not yet encountered the problem you all are having.

Leslie

Reply
Riaan Taljaard responded on 6 Feb 2017 6:48 AM

Has anyone else come accross this issue?

Here is an update, when we choose to NOT prin to screen and only email statements with "Print Remaining Statements" checked, it seems to work fine. When we printo to screen and email it seems to have a problem.

Reply
KAZSIBAF responded on 7 Oct 2017 9:36 AM

I am having this same issue.  When emailing our June 2017 statements randomly about 50 out of 600 emails were sent with the attachment of the May 2017 statement rather than June 2017.   Then when emailing July 2017 everything was fine.  And finally when emailing the August 2017 statements another random about 50 out of 600 emails were sent with the attachment of the July statement.  Makes no sense.    

Reply
Mick Egan responded on 12 Oct 2017 5:06 PM

I wonder if you cleared out the "Reprint Statements" under Routines if this would stop the old Statements from being sent.

Mick

Reply
KAZSIBAF responded on 13 Oct 2017 1:07 PM

Interesting idea.  I will give it a try next month.  Just for the record I emailed my statements for September and had no issues.  The only thing I did differently this month was to run them from my main computer that is directly connected to the network rather than my second computer which has a remote connection.  Not sure if that made the difference but it should processed a lot quicker.

Reply