+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #203617 +++ Description of problem: trying to access a global address list configured in the exchange connecter results in the following dialog box: "Error loading addressbook. We were unable to open this addressbook. This either means you have entered an incorrect URI, or the server is unreachable." Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): $ rpm -qa |grep evolution evolution-data-server-devel-1.6.3-1.fc5.2 evolution-2.6.3-1.fc5.5 evolution-data-server-1.6.3-1.fc5.2 evolution-webcal-2.4.1-3.4 evolution-sharp-0.10.2-9.5 evolution-connector-2.6.3-1.fc5 How reproducible: attempt to access a global adress list not on the same server as the exchange server Steps to Reproduce: 1. configure evolution to use exchange 2. (re) start exchange and login to mail box 3. access the contacts 4. attempt to open the "Global Address List" Actual results: error above Expected results: the ability to search the GAL Additional info: I've tested this on two different boxes, both are fully up2date FC5 boxes (as of todays date). Same results on both. One box is i386 and one is x86_64 (running x86_64 release of FC5). -- Additional comment from donavan on 2006-08-22 14:55 EST -- Created an attachment (id=134660) output of manually starting /usr/libexec/evolution-data-server-1.6 and trying to access the GAL (several times) -- Additional comment from donavan on 2006-08-22 15:03 EST -- Created an attachment (id=134662) screen shot of the gal config page notice how the gal IP address is not the same as the one in the /usr/libexec/evolution-data-server-1.6 log attatched earlier. -- Additional comment from donavan on 2006-10-04 12:43 EST -- I performed a fresh fc6t3 install and I'm fully yum updated on a i386 box. I continue to encounter the same failures. The IP address of the GAL server is the same as is used in working RHEL4 installs other in the office use. [donavan@slackmasterd2 ~]$ uname -a Linux slackmasterd2 2.6.18-1.2726.fc6 #1 SMP Mon Oct 2 19:27:36 EDT 2006 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux [donavan@slackmasterd2 ~]$ rpm -qa |grep evolution evolution-data-server-1.8.0-11.fc6 beagle-evolution-0.2.10-3.fc6 evolution-webcal-2.7.1-6 evolution-sharp-0.11.1-10.fc6 evolution-2.8.0-7.fc6 evolution-connector-2.8.0-3.fc6 Please advise if I can provide additonal information. -- Additional comment from bdwheele on 2006-10-25 10:08 EST -- This is true for me also -- The gal:// url is taken from the owa address entered. (in my case www.exchange.iu.edu instead of the gal address of ads.iu.edu) changing the value in the gconf key /apps/evolution/addressbook/sources doesn't seem to fix it -- Additional comment from donavan on 2006-10-25 12:59 EST -- Problem persists in FC6 final.
This problem exists in the stock evolution* components in RHEL5b2.
*** Bug 237129 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux release. Since this bugzilla is in a component that is not approved for the current release, it has been closed with resolution deferred. You may reopen this bugzilla for consideration in the next release.
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release.
Donovan, can you look for a differences between your RHEL4 (correctly behaving) box and the RHEL5 (or even Fedora, incorrectly behaving) boxes? I mean both from the UI (Edit->Preferences->Mail Accounts->Exchange) and from the gconf key /apps/evolution/addressbook/sources. One thing I can think of, what is your authentication method of the Exchange account? I see you use auth=Basic, but some GALs require NTLM authentication. Maybe also be sure you have there http:// or https:// in the fields for OWA/GAL.
Reporter, could you please reply to the previous question? Thank you.
Donavan? Could you please react to the comment 9, please?
Since there are insufficient details provided in this report for us to investigate the issue further, and we have not received feedback to the information we have requested above, we will assume the problem was not reproducible, or has been fixed in one of the updates we have released for the reporter's distribution. Users who have experienced this problem are encouraged to upgrade to the latest update of their distribution, and if this issue turns out to still be reproducible in the latest update, please reopen this bug with additional information. Closing as INSUFFICIENT_DATA.