Re: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
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 notice a huge speedup in php scripts if you are upgrading from apache 1.x. squirrelmail.org does not recommend using apache2 with it, but I didn't have any problem so far.
Re: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
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 a very technical example, you can't ignore this: http://www.google.com/search?q=Perl+exploits (about 45,400 hits) http://www.google.com/search?q=PHP+exploits (about 128,000 hits) Windows == 63M Linux == 57M Debian== 16M Microsoft == 40M You can try to prove anything with numbers. :-) -- Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo! [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jeremy.zawodny.com/
Re: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
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 a very technical example, you can't ignore this: http://www.google.com/search?q=Perl+exploits (about 45,400 hits) http://www.google.com/search?q=PHP+exploits (about 128,000 hits) ahh, but http://www.google.com/search?q=mygol+exploits (1 hit) So use mygol instead! This mostly just shows the popularity of the language, which is a good thing. To be slightly more scientific about it, you need to divide the total lang+exploits hits by the lang hits. This gives; Perl: 40,000 / 13,500,000 = 0.29 % PHP : 129,000 / 183,000,000 = 0.07% Python : 12,300 / 5,080,000 = 0.24% These figures probably show more about how bad this method of assessing something is than anything else. There are so many factors that could bias these results, they are hardly worth looking at. The Python hits at first glance seem to be badly biased by the Exploits of Monty Python all over the web (2,840 sub-hits on Monty, which brings it down to 0.18%). The PHP and Perl results are probably slightly more indicative, and show PHP as significantly less exploited than Perl. It also shows PHP as significantly more popular than Perl. -- Donovan Baardahttp://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
RE: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
-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 than one OS, and as such would be expected to have 'greater than one' numbers. Btw, OpenBSD exploits only googled 22,000 hits. ;) While googling is by no means an exact science, it is a measurement that has some weight. -Jim P.
Re: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
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 as fact (MS+Win has security flaws) is mirrored in your numbers. Thanks for reinforcing my point. Those numbers have nothing to do with security. They were single word searches. -- Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo! [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jeremy.zawodny.com/
Re: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
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 download attachments of any great size. Some of my clients have sent me attachments of up to 6M, and SquirrelMail will not handle that. It seems the memory for a PHP app must be set aside before it is loaded into Apache. I assume there is a reason such as not allowing it to break as easily, but SquirrelMail out of the package won't handle attachments much larger than 1.5M. Since it is easier to just mime decode the stupid things than to talk someone through FTP (some of my clients are, shall we say, less than technically apt), I either go to the server and manually decode it, or use Netscrape mail to fetch it off the server (then ask the client not to do that again). Increasing the amount of memory in the PHP config file did not help (I set aside 64M and still couldn't download it). You've got three parameters to tune: max_execution_time memory_limit post_max_size Depending of your application you will have to set the last two (or/and) at your max attachment size, and djust max_execution_time according to the time needed to upload this size ;-) Also, I have had SquirrelMail break on upgrades due to differences in the configuration format. This happened in testing, so is probably not a big problem (I run testing on my production server, yes, I know). It has (appearantly permenantly) lost the themes. I often prefer to maintain php app as source (without .deb helping)... -- Emmanuel Lacour Easter-eggs 44-46 rue de l'Ouest - 75014 Paris - France - Métro Gaité Phone: +33 (0) 1 43 35 00 37- Fax: +33 (0) 1 41 35 00 76 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -http://www.easter-eggs.com
Re: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
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 the php stuff set up in the web server when I was using plain apache. And IIRC it wanted to copy all the php stuff into /etc or /var/www or somewhere, which does not seem like it would make it easy to upgrade. I have settled on sqwebmail, which is very easy to set up if you use courier already. It has some nice features like user configurable filtering via maildrop, and gpg support. It also does not require javascript or anything of that ilk, and is a plain jane cgi program and not some nasty thing embedded in the web server. I can't give any real testomony past that as I am just in the process of rolling it out. -- see shy jo pgpb7RMb26SZK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
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 from apache 1.x. squirrelmail.org does not recommend using apache2 with it, but I didn't have any problem so far. -- Koba
Re: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
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 others, but with less features or ugly interfaces... Give it a try: http://www.squirrelmail.org Hope this help, Albert Tomàs Núñez Lirola dijo: -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 webmail do you prefer? Why? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+t39qGOU6HQZ81TcRAqXVAKCsGcUrtlRAk9F/b8Awcbf87HdfiACeNa4b PGIiLNSdzEsOVBral9M8Vvk=OSyt -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Albert Teixidó Pub PGP key 0x0E16E76 Albert Teixidó [EMAIL PROTECTED] at pgp.rediris.es
Re: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
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 webmail do you prefer? Why? You don't need no package for IMP. Just download and install it from the Homepage (horde.org). It won't mess up your system because it's only PHP. I'm not really happy with it but it's the only webmail that works with my configuration and complies with my requirements (free, Maildir/IMAP support). If anybody has a suggestion what to use I'd be happy to hear your comments. 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. Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Best regards Dominik Schulz
Re: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
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 doesn't actually matter which mail store format you use (or which IMAP server, for that matter, you could probably use exchange if it's got around to implementing IMAP properly yet). Try it out. I like it, my customers like it, and it rocks. Matthew King -- GIT/CM d+(-) s++:- a--? C UL$ P+++ L++ E++ W--$ N o? K++ w--- O-- M V? PS PE-- Y+++ PGP++@ t+ 5- X- R tv b+++ DI++ D++ G e(*) h!- r--- y-+++
RE: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
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? Why?
-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 webmail do you prefer? Why?
El Domingo, 20 de Abril de 2003 18:41, Ola Lundqvist escribió:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 01:30:57PM +0200, Tomàs Núñez Lirola wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello
The imp debian package is depricated. You should really use the
imp3 packages from sarge. The support for imp2 (imp package) stopped
upstream over a year ago.
Regards,
// Ola (The imp package maintainer, but not imp3 :)
Hi
I think I've found a bug in IMP Debian package.
When I saved Full Name on preferences, IMP added a to the end of
the full name. Then, when I sent a message, the From: appeared
something like that:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I looked at the database and I found this in the Full Name field.
I
looked where this string was added to the database and I found this
function ___
if (isset($fullname) ($fullname != $old_fullname)) {
// filter for existing quotes
if (substr($fullname, 0, 1) == '' substr($fullname, -1) == '')
{
$fullname = substr($fullname, 1, -1);
}
// filter for illegal characters
$quoted = imap_rfc822_write_address('', '', $fullname);
$quoted = substr($quoted, 0, strlen($quoted)-4);
if (!(imp_set_fullname(addslashes($quoted), $imp-user,
$imp-server))) { $errormsg .= $lang-fullname_error; $updated = false;
}
}
___
I don't know a lot about PHP, so I don't fully understand this function,
but I changed the 8th line
$quoted = substr($quoted, 0, strlen($quoted)-4);
changing the -4 for a -5
$quoted = substr($quoted, 0, strlen($quoted)-5);
and now it works perfectly (I think).
My questions are:
Anyone faced this problem before? (In other words, is this a real bug or
it's only on my IMP?)
Should I inform IMP Debian package mantainer? Or IMP coders?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+jBt0GOU6HQZ81TcRAsXOAJ4t9aTOveJmC509qpv339w27jTT4gCeKu+p
monXKMtceZhkkLXtuJU2QnE=
=N8sd
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
- Ola Lundqvist ---
/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD |
| +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
| http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+t39qGOU6HQZ81TcRAqXVAKCsGcUrtlRAk9F/b8Awcbf87HdfiACeNa4b
PGIiLNSdzEsOVBral9M8Vvk=
=OSyt
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
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. (i use it with qmail vpopmail) greets Martin -- Martin Kos Handy +41-76-384-93-33 http://kos.li/ICQ# 13556143Fax +49-89-244-323-681 Say NO to HTML in mail Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux. See http://www.debian.org/
Re: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
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++? 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? Jeremy -- Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo! [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jeremy.zawodny.com/
Re: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
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 because I don't like PHP and I like (and more importantly - know) Perl. Do you care if your system binaries are written in C vs C++? No, but 1) they're compiled languages and 2) they're not that dissimilar (and I know them both :-) 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? Though yes, I am trying to imply that PHP software is less likely to work. I don't know why, and it could quite easily just be me, but I've had a lot of issues with getting PHP sites to work (eg. imp and phpGW) At the end of the day, though, PHP vs Perl (vs Python), VI vs Emacs, C vs C++, BSD vs Linux, etc., etc., etc. They're all the same - boring. As a geek I have a million and one better things to do than argue why one tool is better than another. I have my opinions, but they're mine and not anyone elses. I do, however, find it rather amusing to see how easily my fellow geeks can be reduced to squabbling children. Not in this forum, though. Nosir. :-) Matthew -- GIT/CM d+(-) s++:- a--? C UL$ P+++ L++ E++ W--$ N o? K++ w--- O-- M V? PS PE-- Y+++ PGP++@ t+ 5- X- R tv b+++ DI++ D++ G e(*) h!- r--- y-+++
Re: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
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 care if your system binaries are written in C vs C++? Yes. Certainly, I care whether they're written in a systems programming language (C, C++), a good stable interpreted language (Python, Perl), or somebody's favorite toy language with semantics resembling a language best left on the dustheap of the eighties (Copy on read? What were they thinking?). I'd rather have an SSH server written in a garbage-collected language with mandatory bounds checking, for example: on those machines which aren't terminal servers, OpenSSH's has about ten times as much code as I'd like. 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? Yes. PHP's not Ultimate Evil, it's just kind of chintzy: * It's a special-purpose language, but used to write large applications. General purpose languages tend to pick up more mindshare, attract better programmers, and pick up more eyeballs skimming for bugs. Their code's more maintainable, too. * The language was never planned. PHP is still at the stage Perl was with Perl 4: a bunch of Neat Features without any idea of what happens when you use them all at once. * Because of its niche, it picks up an unusually high proportion of poor programmers. This doesn't affect any *particular* program -- I use SquirrelMail myself, and love it -- it's just that PHP is as much of a warning sign to me when looking at a programmer's resume as seeing one published piece of software, an IRC client. * It's very easy to use PHP insecurely. This is compounded by the PHP engine's security record. So what does this mean for you, as an ISP considering two web-interface applications, one written in PHP, and the other in Perl (say, with Mason)? You have reason to be more nervous about the machine the PHP app is on, and you'll have to search more widely and examine candidates more closely when finding maintenance programmers. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
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 language matter? Do you care if your system binaries are written in C vs C++? 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'm not the OP, but I'm guessing he's referring to the fact that it's far more likely that you're going to tweak a web-app than some system binary. Therefore, implementation does matter. Also, many people are already running mod_perl; it's nicer to leverage that than to configure additional modules. In my expereince, mod_perl + apache interaction is more stable than PHP + apache, especially across upgrades. -- Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] prepBut nI vrbLike adjHungarian! qWhat's artThe adjBig nProblem? -- alec flett @netscape
Re: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
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 that's because he like perl and is more confortable with perl than php so he prefer to have perl softwares... of course, it's not really interesting to have bash written in perl, but a webmail is often modified for own purpose so a known (and easy for you) language could be one think to consider in such a choice. That's my analyze, and I agree with me ;-) -- Emmanuel Lacour Easter-eggs 44-46 rue de l'Ouest - 75014 Paris - France - Métro Gaité Phone: +33 (0) 1 43 35 00 37- Fax: +33 (0) 1 41 35 00 76 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -http://www.easter-eggs.com
Re: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
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 attachments of up to 6M, and SquirrelMail will not handle that. It seems the memory for a PHP app must be set aside before it is loaded into Apache. I assume there is a reason such as not allowing it to break as easily, but SquirrelMail out of the package won't handle attachments much larger than 1.5M. Since it is easier to just mime decode the stupid things than to talk someone through FTP (some of my clients are, shall we say, less than technically apt), I either go to the server and manually decode it, or use Netscrape mail to fetch it off the server (then ask the client not to do that again). Increasing the amount of memory in the PHP config file did not help (I set aside 64M and still couldn't download it). Also, I have had SquirrelMail break on upgrades due to differences in the configuration format. This happened in testing, so is probably not a big problem (I run testing on my production server, yes, I know). It has (appearantly permenantly) lost the themes. I'd suggest installing SquirrelMail, but be prepared to get your hands dirty a little. Great little program and there are tons of add-on modules you can, but don't have to, install. I especially like the fortune module. :) Perl vs PHP? I'm a Perl programmer, and have a bias. But, it seems PHP is more prone to breaking. However, whether it is a problem with the language or a problem with the type of programmers using it, I don't know. VisualBasic is actually a pretty good language, but the programmers who use it are generally not professionals or experienced, so you get lower quality software as a result. SquirrelMail is, as far as I've seen, done by some programmers who know what they are doing, and it is pretty stable. Rod 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 that's because he like perl and is more confortable with perl than php so he prefer to have perl softwares... of course, it's not really interesting to have bash written in perl, but a webmail is often modified for own purpose so a known (and easy for you) language could be one think to consider in such a choice. That's my analyze, and I agree with me ;-) -- Emmanuel Lacour Easter-eggs 44-46 rue de l'Ouest - 75014 Paris - France - Métro Gaité Phone: +33 (0) 1 43 35 00 37- Fax: +33 (0) 1 41 35 00 76 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -http://www.easter-eggs.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ameobit, noun- Ameoba/Rabbit cross. It can multiply and divide simultaneously.
Re: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
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? Do you care if your system binaries are written in C vs C++? 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 like it when I can go and have a look in the code and understand what is being said. I don't speak X, I do speak Y. So I would prefer(!) my app. of choice to be written in Y. tinus.
RE: Which webmail do you prefer? Why?
-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 (about 45,400 hits) http://www.google.com/search?q=PHP+exploits (about 128,000 hits) -Jim P.
