On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 11:06 PM, LuKreme <kremels@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 1-Mar-2009, at 15:12, Paul Lesniewski wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 7:27 PM, LuKreme <kremels@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> I have a squirrelmail install that processes both virtual users (user@xxxxxxxxxxx >>> ) and local users (user@xxxxxxxxxxx). The local users have to login >>> as 'user' while everyone else logs in as 'user@xxxxxxxxxxx' >>> >>> What I would like to do is allow EITHER 'user@xxxxxxxxxxx' or >>> 'user' for the local (example.org) users (obviously the virtual >>> users still have to use user@xxxxxxxxxxx as their user name). >> >> Not so obvious if you use the Login Manager plugin, which allows the >> virtual users also to log in as "user" also (which IMO is a good >> thing). > > I don't see how that is possible; there is a LOT of name collision > between domains. For example, almost ever hosted domain has a 'sales@xxxxxxxxxx > ' and a 'webmaster@xxxxxxxxxx' address. Just because the end user puts in "mary" on the login screen does not mean that the plugin can't construct the real IMAP username to give to the IMAP server when actually logging in. You have to think about what the software can do to make it easier on the user. >> If you configure that plugin correctly (for starters, put >> $dontUseHostName into the $virtualDomains array and turn it off for >> the local domain), > > Sounds like I will need to take a look a the Login Manager plugin... > > Oh, now *that* I'd never even considered: > > • make sure all usernames given on login page > have the domain that corresponds to the domain > in the URL of the login page appended to them > > • allow users to log in with just a "user" when > in fact their IMAP login might be something > like "username@xxxxxxxxxx" > > Hmm.. I will have to think about that. Clearly it has some benefits, > but it will need some retraining of the monke-- er, users. Not really. You can configure the plugin to also allow full email address logins (and either respect them or strip the domain part off). >> you can make such a system work, although in general I think you are >> asking for trouble when you try to put both kinds of users on the >> same machine. > > It's a decade too late for that... > >> I don't see any reason why you'd ever need to keep local mail users >> if you already have a virtual setup. > > Local users are those who can login to the shell, it seems only polite > to have their email be part of their shell account, especially as some > things are a bit easier to do from the shell. Depends on the environment and use model of course, but most of the time there should never be regular users on the mail system. There are in fact ways to configure Pine to use virtual mail accounts, but anyway, if you only have one server for your whole business and users have to log into the server to use some software on it, then sure, I can understand why you might want local mail accounts, but with the price of computing hardware today, I find it hard to imagine why you couldn't buy a second machine. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H ----- 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
