Adjusting AP Payment terms to allow for mail service

I am interested in adjusting the Accounts Payable process to release payments earlier than the payment terms (e.g. Net 30 payment would release for payment on 28th day) to allow for postal delays. Is that possible on across the board for all payees?

Hi Chris
In the automatic payment run(F110), in the parameters tab -> input a date which is two days ahead in the filed 'Customer items due by' and input todays date in the field 'Docs entered up to'
Ex: If the item is due on Sep 14 then input details as below
Docs enetered up to: 09/12/2014
Customer items due by: 09/14/2014
System will pick up all items due as of Doc entered up to date + till the date in Customer items due by.
Run the payment run the above inputs and check if the next few days due items are pulled into or not.
Thanks,
Sekhar

Similar Messages

Rebate-Manual payment is not allowed for this agreement type

Hi,
While processing the Rebates, after the Sales cycle till Billing document, when i i try to process the partial settlement it is givin a message as "Manual payment is not allowed for this agreement type"
could you please suggest.
Regards
AS

Hi AS
If you want to do manual payment then in VB)2 select the Agreement type and then in that agreement type check wheather Manual rebate order type has been assigned or not and Manual payment has been checked or not . If they are not maintained and Checked then maintain the rebate document type and check the box Manual accruals and then you can do Manual Payment for that agreement
Regards
Srinath

Payments are not allowed for business unit ..... (6000,568)

Hello,
Did anyone ever have the same error message 'Payments are not allowed for business unit (6000,568)' so that he can tell me what I did wrong?
I get this message when I click on 'add' on the regular or epress deposit pages
I have set up the payment options at BU Level so I have no idea what to do know.
Regards,
Stijn

I forgot to creae the group type P ....

T399D - Long-term planning allowed for a plant

Hi gurus,
I was checking the table T399D and it has the "Long-term planning allowed for a plant" field (T399D-SIMPL), but, I do not know where I can customise this!
I was checking OMI8 and OPPQ (Parameters for DS section) transactions, but, I cannot find this field.
Could you help me in order to know where I can customise this?
Kind regards,
Sandra

Hi Sandra,
As it is correctly said that there is not much configuration required to Run LTP, but what you basically need to maintain/configure is as follows-
To carry out an annual planning or a rolling quarterly planning run you require information on the
future stock and requirements situation. This means you need to know how sales and operations
planning influence resources(conceptually)-
In long-term planning you can also plan materials that usually require very little planning in
operative planning, such as, materials planned using reorder point planning, bulk material, and
materials planned using KANBAN. In long-term planning, you can plan these materials as you
would MRP materials. This provides you with an overview of how these materials influence the
demand program.
The materials you want to plan in long-term planning must have already been planned in
operative MRP.Apart from above conceptual knowledge what else you require to configure /maintain is-
Planning Scenario(If you are running wity reference to it)-MS31
And run it through MS02(with reference to planning scenario) where you have to put mandatory MRP Control Parameters according to your business process eg.Processing key,create MRP list,planning mode,scheduling,firming planned orders.
Hope it fulfils your purpose at some extent.
Regards
Chandra

Limit PO Err Combination of GR/IR control not allowed for external services

Hi,
I am having a problem while replicating free text Limit PO's to R/3 in SRM 4.0 SP 13. The issue is while creating Free Text Limit SC with the "Confirmation and Invoice" option checked in, the PO's get created in SRM but fails while replicating to R/3 and in RZ20 errors as "Combination of GR/IR control not allowed for external services" although in vendor master i don't have check for the field "GR-Based Invoice Verification".
On the contrary while creating SC with the "Invoice Only" the PO is successfully replicated to R/3 with item category as B for limit orders.
Now i have noticed if i make changes in the vendor master data i.e. check the flag "GR-Based Invoice Verification" then the PO in my first scenario gets replicated successfully and also with respect to the second scenario but it gets replicated in both the scenarios as item category "D".
As far as SRM standard it should have ideally behave like the below:
Limit SC with GR AND Invoice -> item category D
Limit SC with invoice only -> item category B.
Now my question is why do my PO's fail in R/3 in the first scenario and also if i check the flag in vendor master for GR-Based Invoice verification then in the second scenario the item category is "D" instead of "B".
Thanks in Advance.
Best Regards
Anirban

Hi Georg,
We don't have any active implementation for the BADI BBP_PO_INBOUND_BADI.
Best Regards,
Anirban

Limit PO :Combination of GR/IR is not allowed for external services

Hi,
we are working in SRM40 sp09 & back end ECC.50
In the Limit PO:
we are able to create Limit PO from a shopping cart.The follow on documents in ECC, it is creating a PO with Item category "B" and the "invoices" are only possible.
The Issue:
The Client wants the Confirmation/GR functionality to be enabled and the Invoices.
but for Limit PO, with follow on documents--"Confirmation" is checked, we have a error messagecombination of GR/IR is not allowed for external services".
Is there any addition configuration or steps involved.
Thanks and Regards,
RK.

Hi
Please go through the links below, which address the same issue ->
Limit PO(Item category D instead of B)
SRM: Item category B/D for limit PO
Re: Problem with Unknown account assignment with limit order...reply soon...
Do let me know.
Regards
- Atul

Combination of GR/IR Control not allowed for External Services-SRM PO error

Hi All,
SRM 5.0 ECS R/3 4.6C
We have a service PO, for which an error Combination of GR/IR Control not allowed for External Services is being displayed.
The PO is in error in process at this moment. And is not in R/3
On SRM PO we have Confirm Performance of Service/Goods Receipt checked and Invoice Expected checked.
Confirmation-Related Invoice Verification is not checked. Any thoughts on this!!
Thanks
Krishna

Hi
Please go through the following SAP OSS Notes ->
Note 725824 - MB5S: Error with purchase orders for external service
Note 781014 - Clearing values in purchase order currency are too high
Note 991800 - MB5S: Error in delivery costs (2)
Note 960789 - Wrong Values in MM Document for Service Based Invoice
Note 778562 - MM-IV: invoices are entered before the goods receipt
Note 578531 - Incorrect FM update for service purchase orders
Note 635864 - ME2S: Invoice value is calculated incorrectly
Note 570409 - Unplanned account assignment in invoice for service PO
Note 545684 - MIR4 for SRV: Incorrect data displayed if deletion indicator
Note 544567 - Transaction MIRO: incorr. default values at (parked) invoice
Do let me know.
Regards
- Atul

BAPI CASESERVICE CREATEMULT - Alternative price not allowed for the service

Hi,
I am using .Net Connector to connect to BAPI. I am developing a .Net order processing application and intend to send the order information to SAP using BAPI_CASESERVICE_CREATEMULT.
However, I keep getting the error message "An alternative price is not allowed for the service..". The service id is already setup at SAP and I am not sending any price information. I am only sending quantity. The DIFF_PRICE is set to 0.
Any advice? I appreciate your help.

Hi,
I am using .Net Connector to connect to BAPI. I am developing a .Net order processing application and intend to send the order information to SAP using BAPI_CASESERVICE_CREATEMULT.
However, I keep getting the error message "An alternative price is not allowed for the service..". The service id is already setup at SAP and I am not sending any price information. I am only sending quantity. The DIFF_PRICE is set to 0.
Any advice? I appreciate your help.

Combination of GR/IR control not allowed for external services

Hi,
I need to uncheck the field GR-Based IV (EKPO-WEBRE) in the SERVICE PO but I receive the message :
"Combination of GR/IR control not allowed for external services"
I want to allow the user to receive Invoices (MIRO) before the Service Entry (ML81N).
Thanks.
Carlos Durazo

HI,
This is a "hard coded" option and cannot be removed.
If you want to be able to post invoices for services before the GR (acceptance) then you could consider using "normal" POs for these (without item category "D") abd use material masters (DIEN material type) or describe the service in text.
External services POs are only really suited to complex services or services that need a two step GR process (Service entry and acceptance).
Far too many organisations use the service entry sheet option when "normal POs" would be far better.
Steve B

Payment term not allowed to change

in FB70, payment term is brought from customer master data, but user can change it, is there any way we can block it?(not allow user to change payment term , for example , this field greyed out).
in F-28, is there any way we can grey out the document date, so user will not be allowed to change document date, so document date is the current system date.

Hi,
For your first question:in FB70, payment term is brought from customer master data, but user can change it, is there any way we can block it?(not allow user to change payment term , for example , this field greyed out).
You can try to create transaction variant in T-cd:SHD0 to contol it
in F-28, is there any way we can grey out the document date, so user will not be allowed to change document date, so document date is the current system date.
You can try to create validation in T-cD:OB28 to do further check, if you want to use transaction code as prerequisition, please pay attention the default transaction code for F-28 is FBZ1(you can confirm it in T-cd:SE93). in other words, FBZ1 should be used as prerequsition, not F-28.
Example: Prerequsite: SYST-TCODE = 'FBZ1'
Check: BKPF-BLDAT = SYST-DATUM
Otherwise :Message number Z1XXX issued.
Hope above information can help you!
Best Regards,
Gladys xing

Payment terms to change for every supplier...

Hi,
Is it possible to run a transaction in SAP to change payment terms on every suppliers in a company code...?
Appreciate your quick response.
Thank you

Hi,
If you have same vendor payment terms for all or set of vendor you can use XK99 - Mass Maintenance.
Else use LSMW or BDC.
Regards
Ayyallas

DNS configuration behind a router for Mail Services

I am in the beginning stages of trying to set-up a test ground for a local mail server. I am playing with OS X servers DNS functions. I am new to DNS and am having slight trouble.
What I want to do is have OS X DNS point to another server that is on my nat for mail exchange (it is a suse linux box running kerio).
My current set-up is:
internet --> Router for internal NAT --> OS X server is behind this nat on an IP of 10.100.251.10, the suse box is on 10.100.251.11
I have set-up a primary zone: ns1.domain_x.com with a server IP being that of my internet static IP (supplied by my ISP).
I have opened the necessary ports on my router (53) to point to the os x server box for DNS serving.
My problem is.. I need to setup a mail exchange (mail.domain_x.com) record that points to the 10.100.251.11 box.
When I do this and the global DNS servers update, a host lookup will point mail.domain_x.com to 10.100.251.11
Which obviously is not right.
am i missing a concept here?
the dns server and the mail exchange I want to run are being running on the same Internet IP address, just behind a nat that the os x server is not controlling.
any suggestion would be appreciated.. TIA

The MX data/pointers is only needed for server to server mail exchange so that is no problem.
(If the DNS and the mailserver are supposed to use the same public IP but run on different NATed IPs/machines you forward the traffic to the different NATed IPs based on portnumbers in your Internet router/firewall.)
The problem I think is the mailserver finding itself on the right IP for the public IP domainname.
I guess the easiest way to do it would be to have two DNS machines: one for public and one for private IPs.
The private IP DNS would serve the mailserver and the internal NATed network, if you are using the same domainname internally.
Or (as the one with the public IP data is NATed), maybe BIND views can be used to serve different zonefiles for the same domainname depending on wether the DNS lookups comes from Internet and/or the NAT router gw LAN IP or if they come from any other NATed LAN IP.
Or maybe having only a hostfile with the private address for the same domainname would suffice on the mailserver and also using the ISP's DNSes for finding other public IP mailservers on it.
That wouldn't fix finding the mailserver (using the same domainname) from other machines on the NATed LAN though.

DNS for Mail service Virtual Domains

On a server primarily running as a Mail server with 10.6.3 (DNS and OD also running)
If host name is mail.domain.com and
if mail service has a virtual domain virtualdomain.com,
in the DNS setup, virtualdomain.com should have an MX record like mail.virtualdomain.com and either an A record pointing to the IP of mail.domain.com OR a CNAME pointing to mail.domain.com?
When setting to the CNAME, DNS logs says:
"25-May-2010 11:47:52.610 zone virtualdomain.com/IN/com.apple.ServerAdmin.DNS.public: virtualdomain.com/MX 'mail.virtualdomain.com' is a CNAME (illegal)"
but if I set to an A record pointing to the IP, isn't there a PTR conflict with the mail.domain.com pointing to the same IP?

SMTP requires an A or AAA as the required response for the box named in an MX.
Your MX for the domain or subdomain would/should/must aim at an A or AAA.
Not a CNAME. That's considered illegal.
Yes, random domains can all have their respective MX records pointing to the same mail server. So long as the mail server has an A or AAA record. And that mail server itself is expected to be configured to accept mail for those domains for local delivery, or as part of a relay.

Is multiple recipients allowed for mail type workitem?

I have one "Send Mail" step in my workflow, I want to send the mail to multiple recipients, one of the recipient is &_WF_INITIATOR& the workflow initiator which is dynamically determined at runtime and other recipients &RECIPIENTS& of the mail are determined by application. So can I set the recipients of this "Mail" with expression like this:
&_WF_INITIATOR&;&RECIPIENTS&, split them with ";" like outlook?
Thanks for your answer.

Hi,
If I am not wrong, RECIPIENTS is a MULTI LINE CONTAINER ELEMENT which gets determined from the Application. Why dont you add your WF_INITIATOR logic also to that Application logic, so that RECIPIENTS contain the WF_INITIATOR also?
You cannot set Mail Expression as :&_WF_INITIATOR&;&RECIPIENTS&.
You can only set only one Container(single/multi line) Element for each mail step.
Regards,
Raja Sekhar

Automatic payment transactions to allow for refunds

Require a reason code functionality when raising credits to improve reporting to determine why values are paid back

Dear People.
Special GL related matter we are unable to run the automatic payment,
You have to paid manual at F-53
Thanks and REgards
N.Soma Sundaram

Adjusting AP Payment terms to allow for mail service

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for