> My sincere apologies - I wasn't trying to get anyone upset (as I > evidently did). I was always taught to snip for brevity if it doesn't > remove any context. I'll go whip myself so everyone feels better. I didn't say anything about content. You flattened the quoted text so it's not possible to see who typed what. Know the difference. > Jeez - you people are happy little vegemites aren't you? > > BTW - I never said it was an "SM issue" - I get the distinct feeling > that you thought I was "blaming" squirrelmail - far from it - I think > it's a bloody good product. I was simply asking for advice and looking > for a solution to a problem as opposed to being talked down to like some > kind of fsckwit. You got suggestions. You also got opinions. No one called you stupid. Re-reading what was written, I see no personal attacks, nothing out of line. Personally, my style is quick and to the point, as it's the only way to stay on top of all the emails around here. You should go re-read this thread and understand you were not attacked and try not to make it so personal (YOU are the only one I see making personal accusations). > I also think maybe you should go take a few deep breaths. You are no longer welcome to post here if this is the kind of contribution you are going to make. Please have more consideration for the people putting their free time and energy into this community. > Paul Lesniewski wrote: >> Why did you flatten the quoted text in this thread? Please reply in >> text with quoted text preserved. >> >> >>> We recently installed Squirrelmail onto a customer's mail server. >>> >>> The setup is this: >>> >>> FC9 >>> php-5.1.6-3.7.fc6 >>> httpd-2.2.3-5 >>> dovecot-1.0.3-6.fc6 >>> SquirrelMail version 1.4.15 >>> >>> As well as the normal users account, we also have an account called (for the >>> sake of brevity) "Plans" (think "Customers"). Below this account is a >>> separate folder for each Plan. It looks like this: >>> >>> Plan-1 >>> Plan-2 >>> ...... >>> ...... >>> Plan-9999 >>> >>> Each of the users has responsibility for a subset of the Plans, but >>> everybody also needs access to all the Plans folders. >>> >>> Consequently, an end users folder structure will look like this: >>> >>> Inbox >>> Trash >>> My Plans >>> Plan-27 >>> Plan-101 >>> Personal Files >>> Work Files >>> More Folder >>> ........... >>> More Folders >>> All Plans >>> Plan-1 >>> Plan-2 >>> Plan-3 >>> ..... >>> ..... >>> Plan-999 >>> Other Folders >>> >>> This has been done so that they can collapse "All Plans" and deal just with >>> "My Plans" but they can (of needed) get access to all the plans (customers) >>> emails. >>> >>> The "All Plans" is a separate IMAP account that everyone is subscribed to. >>> >>> The "My Plans is a just folder that contains symbolic links back to the >>> actual folders (from All Plans). >>> >>> >>> symlinks to implement shared mail folders? Is this the official >>> recommendation from dovecot on how to implement this? If dovecot >>> dumps any of its own data (subscription/other) files into mail >>> folders, then this kind of symlinking is bound to break IMO. You need >>> to take this whole design to the dovecot community and make sure it >>> really will work before you try to figure out if it will work via >>> webmail. If you insist on solving a server problem using a client, >>> though, turn up your IMAP logging verbosity or sniff the connection >>> between webmail and IMAP to see the commands and responses and errors >>> dovecot is throwing. >>> >>> >>> Dovecot does not recommend using symlinks. I have managed dovecot servers >>> Since Redhat v8 and have never recommended or have it recommended to me to >>> ever use symlinks. On the contrary, using symlinks can, and apparently >>> does, cause undesirable affects. >>> >>> Don't use symlinks unless you can verify and quantify the potentialities >>> as you encounter them. Too many moving parts? Start over and do it 'by the >>> book' >>> >>> My 2 pence. >>> >>> Karl >>> >>> >>> >>> Whilst I do not doubt your good intentions and experience, and have no >>> desire to get into a tussle over this, according to Tino Sirainen just a few >>> months ago: >>> >>> Some future Dovecot version will hopefully have a better support for >>> shared mailboxes, but for now symlinks are probably the best you can do. >>> >> >> Then it sounds like a hack to begin with which should send up red >> flags for anyone running a production system. Maybe you should use an >> IMAP server that has correctly implemented a shared folders solution. >> If you remain with your current implementation, then my last >> suggestion is your next step. I don't really think this is a SM >> issue. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ ----- squirrelmail-users mailing list Posting guidelines: http://squirrelmail.org/postingguidelines List address: squirrelmail-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx List archives: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.mail.squirrelmail.user List info (subscribe/unsubscribe/change options): https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/squirrelmail-users
