At 9/30/2015 07:57, you wrote: >So I thought I'd play with the length of the configuration name (which >is all alphabetic) and found that a character length up to and including >55 worked, but 56 upwards failed. At 80 characters, there were >catastrophic error messages as well, so I didn't go there again. > >I shall just have to be less verbose in my report naming system! I >realise the failing number of characters may be different depending on >other factors I haven't fully investigated, e.g. the path length of the >Configuration_files folder, although mine is the TMG9 default, albeit on >my D: drive, and my username is only 8 characters long; my configuration >name limit of 55 added to that folder path length gets me to around 128, >which may be significant, even though the Windows 7 maximum path length >including filename is 256. > >I'm running TMG v9.05 on Windows 7 64-bit. > >Is this a known bug or a new one? To my knowledge, you are the first to try such a long entry. But, it really is not a bug (although I am surprised at the results as much as you). It is more of a design issue. The Report Definition Configuration Name was never planned to be long. Note that the field in which the Configuration Name is displayed on the Report Definition Screen is only about 58-60 characters long (anything longer would not be seen). Since it is only for the user, it was deemed to be long enough. In fact, earlier versions (v4 and before) only allowed about 40 characters. Insofar as the effect of having a "too long" Configuration Name, I am surprised and would have thought that anything more than design length would have been ignored, truncated to the display field length, displayed an error message, or bother the last two. My guess is that it was never expected that something that long would be exceeded. And I doubt that any beta tester tried a long Configuration Name. Lee