Ha. Deleted se000001.pl from the site folder, ran the web test. Same results as before. No error message, and no new se000001.pl file appeared in site folder. ??
Very strange. Unlike the other scripts, this one should be generated every time Web Site Analysis is run and uploaded to the server before being run. It does not even check if the script has changed or not.
Is Actinic going to help users who cannot install the Perl modules
I think the community effort to solve this issue has been excellent. Thanks to everyone who has posted, I have been reading with interest.
It looks like one 'solution' is to install the Crypt::SSLeay and Net::SSL perl modules. However in some cases this will not be possible as some ISP's will not offer this level of customisation. Also moving hosts is not an easy job and it means much disruption for clients who may lose webmail/settings/other etc not to mention the unwanted bother factor. And many people may well be happy with their current host.
Bearing in mind the wide array of hosting providers and that potential portability for Actinic is a selling point. On this basis I am keen to know if Actinic intend to update the ActinicSSL script as I assume that this would solve it without causing anyone any issue. I appreciate that it may not be a simple job but if this is now what is currently broken (I know it is Paypal that caused it), then surely this is what is needed to fix it. As only Actinic sites are effected by this upgrade then maybe it is time to update this script to work properly?
The problem, if confirmed, will require a significant amount of effort from Actinic so a non Net::SSL solution will depend on PayPal's stance on the change that they have apparently made.
In short, I believe PayPal could solve the problem quite quickly but may choose not to but for Actinic to solve the problem will take time.
I have not had the expected confirmation from PayPal as yet so I will nudge them again.
v9.05
did a site upload about an hour ago... no difference.
I also discovered that SSL support was not ticked on our server - after speaking to your tech support, we've turned it on. Did a test Paypal order, and... it went into PSP pending.
I also discovered that SSL support was not ticked on our server - after speaking to your tech support, we've turned it on. Did a test Paypal order, and... it went into PSP pending.
If you mean on the web server management (Plesk, cPanel or similar) then it won't make a difference as that would determine if the web site is to accept SSL connections. Net::SSL is used by Actinic to make SSL connections from the web server to the PayPal server.
Actinic has never tested PayPal via SagePay and to the best of my knowledge it is not an option when integrating with Actinic.
If any merchant has such a configuration it is not supported by Actinic.
SagePay (when it was PROTX) developed the integration and Actinic keep the integration compatible with our products but we do not add features such as PayPal via SagePay.
Can you edit the Site SiteExplorer.pl script in NotePad (or any other text editor) and look for 'SE_INFO_MODULE' to confirm that it is the correct version of the file.
If you have Access then (with actinic closed) you can also open the Site DB ActinicCatalog.mdb and run the following SQL:-
DELETE * FROM FileList WHERE sFilename="se000001.pl";
Having kicked this thread off and having had to just keep watching a reading and doing my best to understand all the technical issues I can confirm my hosting company have this morning again read through the recent posts and implemented the Net::SSL and Crypt::SSLeay modules.
Extremely pleased to advise we have just had a paypal order successfully download and go straight into Pending rather than Pending PSP.
So it would seem the installation of these modules has worked for us - fingers crossed.
Hi everyone,
Excited to think that this is now solved. Just a quick one for all you server people out there. I have been onto our server people and they have quoted 2 hours to install these two modules. We are on a Windows Plesk server. Does this sound about right, timewise I mean. I look forward to reading a response.
Comment