I confirm with apache 2.0.44/PHP 4.3.1
B.
Koba a écrit :
On Wed, 7 May 2003 11:48:24 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I looked at SquirrelMail, but php4 is not supported with apache2.
Yes it does. I'm testing the Apache/2.0.45 PHP/4.3.1 combination and it
works like a charm. You'll noti
On Wed, 7 May 2003 11:48:24 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I looked at SquirrelMail, but php4 is not supported with apache2.
Yes it does. I'm testing the Apache/2.0.45 PHP/4.3.1 combination and it
works like a charm. You'll notice a huge speedup in php scripts if you are
upgrading fr
Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> Why does the implementation language matter? Do you care if your
> system binaries are written in C vs C++?
Not at all, unless the implementation language causes limitations.
I looked at SquirrelMail, but php4 is not supported with apache2. It
also looked painful to get t
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 05:46:49PM -0500, Rod Rodolico wrote:
> PHP has some problems, at least in the SquirrelMail arena. First I want to
> say I use it, like it, and my clients like it. But I've had to create some
> work-arounds.
>
> The one that is most striking is that it will not easily downl
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 01:07:11AM -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jeremy D. Zawodny
> >
> > Windows == 63M
> > Linux == 57M
> > Debian== 16M
> > Microsoft == 40M
> >
> > You can try to prove anything with numbers. :-)
>
> What we as Debian users know
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeremy D. Zawodny
>
> Windows == 63M
> Linux == 57M
> Debian== 16M
> Microsoft == 40M
>
> You can try to prove anything with numbers. :-)
What we as Debian users know as fact (MS+Win has security flaws) is mirrored in
your numbers. Linux is bigger th
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 11:33:46PM -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jeremy D. Zawodny
> > Subject: Re: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
> >
> >
> > Why does the implementation language matter?
>
> Although not
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 11:33:46PM -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jeremy D. Zawodny
> > Subject: Re: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
> >
> >
> > Why does the implementation language matter?
>
> Although not
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeremy D. Zawodny
> Subject: Re: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
>
>
> Why does the implementation language matter?
Although not a very technical example, you can't ignore this:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Perl+exploits (abo
On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 20:13, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 02:23:58PM +0100, Matthew King wrote:
> > SquirrelMail. Webmail for nuts. Sounds weird, but it rocks.
> >
> > It's in PHP (I'd personally prefer perl) but it still works.
>
> Why does the implementation language matter?
PHP has some problems, at least in the SquirrelMail arena. First I want to
say I use it, like it, and my clients like it. But I've had to create some
work-arounds.
The one that is most striking is that it will not easily download
attachments of any great size. Some of my clients have sent me attac
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 11:13:05AM -0700, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
>
> I always wonder what people really mean when they say things like
> that--especially in this sort of context. Can you clarify why it
> matters? Are you trying to imply that PHP software is less likely to
> work?
>
I just think
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 11:13:05AM -0700, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 02:23:58PM +0100, Matthew King wrote:
> > SquirrelMail. Webmail for nuts. Sounds weird, but it rocks.
> >
> > It's in PHP (I'd personally prefer perl) but it still works.
>
> Why does the implementation lang
Jeremy Zawodny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 02:23:58PM +0100, Matthew King wrote:
>> SquirrelMail. Webmail for nuts. Sounds weird, but it rocks.
>>
>> It's in PHP (I'd personally prefer perl) but it still works.
>
> Why does the implementation language matter? Do you car
It's emphasised bigotry.
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 11:13:05AM -0700, The voices made Jeremy Zawodny say:
> On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 02:23:58PM +0100, Matthew King wrote:
> > It's in PHP (I'd personally prefer perl) but it still works.
>
> Why does the implementation language matter?
Basically becau
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 02:23:58PM +0100, Matthew King wrote:
> SquirrelMail. Webmail for nuts. Sounds weird, but it rocks.
>
> It's in PHP (I'd personally prefer perl) but it still works.
Why does the implementation language matter? Do you care if your
system binaries are written in C vs C++?
On Tue, 6 May 2003, Dominik Schulz wrote:
>I need an Webmail that works with Maildir or if this isn't possible with
>IMAP. IMP is a bit to overloaded in my opinion.
have you tried sqwebmail? .. i'm very happy with it!.. it accesses the
maildirs directly, so you don't need any pop or imap server. (
Due to customers like the interface, we run @Mail. See
http://www.webbasedemail.com
It's commercial though.
Dee
-Original Message-
From: Tomàs Núñez Lirola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 1:25 AM
To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Subject: Which webmail do you prefer? W
SquirrelMail. Webmail for nuts. Sounds weird, but it rocks.
It's in PHP (I'd personally prefer perl) but it still works.
I never could get imp to work properly, but I tried squirrel and
eventually just forgot about imp & horde.
The communication with the server is over the IMAP protocol, so it
d
Tomàs Núñez Lirola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 6 May 2003 11:24:55 +0200:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Thanks for the info.
> Now I wonder why IMP3 have not a testing package... Would it be safe to use
> it?
> However... Is there any better web based mail?
> Which
Hi,
I use Squirrelmail from Woody as my prefered webmail. It's fast, easy to
administer, nice, and with a lot of plugins. It handles a lot of imap4
folders (maildirs) with an average of 2000 mails per folder at home, with
5 users, in a P233MMX with 32 megs of RAM, and it's FAST. I have tried
other
21 matches
Mail list logo
