Do you experience problems during downloading?
Check your connection in Status and Interface settings window.
Use Test Server in Config > Servers.
We will probably ask you to do a test using only basic settings.
Do you experience problems during repair or unpacking?
Enable +Debug logging in the Status and Interface settings window and share the relevant parts of the log here using [ code ] sections.
I just discovered what can only be a bug ... I have multiple accounts with ONE server (e.g. reader.xsnews.nl). When I try to add a second server with the same name; the first get's replaced.
This is not a major problem for me because I have enough accounts elsewere but perhaps you could add a Name field so that the hostname doen't have to be unique anymore.
I am running 0.5.0.aplha2. I'm pretty sure that 0.4.8 has the same problem (but I didn't try it).
It't not a bug, it's a feature.
A work-around is to use a different port (many providers allow you to use alternative ports).
Or as a last resort, use the numeric IP address of the server for the second account.
...would allow sabnzbd to connect on localhost port 1234 in order to download from news.example.org port 119. By starting multiple instances of 6tunnel, each on its own local port number, you'd have no trouble connecting to the same actual newsserver with as many different accounts as you want.
Thanks for the reply; the workaround as stated above (use ip for secondary) is what I did to overcome this. small prob. Although adding the tunneling software sounds (and is) more pro, this is good for me.
'It's not a bug it's a feature" .... Hey! I didn't know YOU are that pr guy from microsoft!
Last edited by Tijlbert on May 7th, 2009, 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tijlbert wrote:
'It's not a bug it's a feature" .... Hey! I didn't know YOU are that pr guy from microsoft!
It's not a bug because it was designed this way.
You may not agree with the design, but that doesn't make it a bug.
The design did not assume that people would have multiple accounts with one provider.
Your rare requirement isn't covered by our implementation.