Let me start off by saying, THANK YOU for adding Job-Specific variables. I'm one request away from being able to standardize and streamline all of my notifications for job/task failures and/or start notifications.

The Notifications do not yet appear to have the ability to use a variable for the "To E-mails" field unless i'm missing something, which means I cannot set a job variable named 'EmailRecipients' to a value of "support@mycompany.com;specificperson@mycompany.com".

I want to be able to use this job-specific variable to populate the recipient list of the notifications so I can have one generic notification possibly going to several groups, depending on which job triggered it.

I can go into detail if you wish, but really, I think I should just ask if its possible for the TO: line in the E-mail Notification to use a variable?

Screenshots attached that show what I tried.

Thanks in advance!

Brian

We just tested and it should work with semicolon separated Job Variable. Not sure what happens here in your case .

---

We just tested and it should work with semicolon separated Job Variable. Not sure what happens here in your case .

From what you see in my screenshot, does it look like I have the syntax correct on the variable ?

I tried it with a single e-mail address and with a semicolon separated value.

Brian

It looks correct. What would be really interesting is to look at the mail server log to see which email it does not like.

---

It looks correct. What would be really interesting is to look at the mail server log to see which email it does not like.

I figured it out. The 'JOB VARIABLES' screen listing the variables does not show the correct syntax for the variable.

It needs to be this: (as noted in the Variables--Job-ActiveJob-Variables)
{JOB(Active,Variable,EmailRecipients)}

The JOB VARIABLES screen while editing the job itself shows it as this (see original secreenshot)

{JOB(Active,EmailRecipients)}

Brian

Ah, you are right. Sorry for missing that.

---

Ah, you are right. Sorry for missing that.

Just so i'm sure, that syntax will not be changing, correct? :)

i'm about to change alot of stuff becuase of this capability....

Brian

No, it won't 😁

---