John Morrissey wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 12:17:02AM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > I know about that Courier-IMAP feature. Will discuss this with Claudio > > again. Maybe we will make it a compile time option. > > That would be much appreciated - thanks!
Ok, the count Trash option for qmail-ldap will be in 2003101. > > BTW: We are very much looking to move away from recommending courier- > > imap. Mr. Sams coding style isn't very good and his world order of > > running the stuff is not our cup of tea either. We'll announce when > > we've decided for someone else. > > Having worked with the Courier-IMAP source before, I can say his coding > style is not the prettiest. What else are you considering? I've seen Binc > and Dovecot, but haven't looked much into either of them. We don't know yet. We are looking at those two. > > Can you give some specific example how such an Status line looks like? > > Is there a specification somewhere? I'm unable to find that patch with > > google. > > I couldn't find an official spec anywhere, but I did find plenty of > references to Outlook Express and Eudora using it. I've posted a copy of the > patch at http://horde.net/~jwm/software/misc/. We'll have to research that some more. > > Actually we haven't met many (any?) Linux user who actually did care > > at all. When presented the option all have chosen super fast async > > ext2/ext3 over slow reliable queueing. For power outages they've got > > the UPS. So no problem and no "risk". Yea, sure... > > (with apologies to Benjamin Franklin) Those who would sacrifice safety for > performance deserve neither safety nor performance. My saying... Anyway, nothing pevents someone from applying the patch on top of qmail-ldap. But will have a look at it. If it's small then I guess we can put it in. > BTW, qmail-ldap's freshmeat entry needs to be updated for the latest > release. I know. Lazy me. -- Andre
