Re: Attention: imapd gpoing back to $HOME as mailbox root
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Onno Ebbinge wrote: > Maybe there is... > > You could patch the program to set the variable at startup from > a parameter or configfile. I haven't seen the source but reading a > variable from a parameter or config file at startup shouldn't be > hard... > Sorry for the late reply, I haven't been reading debian-user for a while. There is actually a configuration file of sorts. See /usr/share/doc/libc-client4.7/imaprc.txt for details. Note also the warning the author has put in it. ** *DANGER! BEWARE! TAKE CARE!* ** ** * These files, and this documentation, are for internal UW usage* * only. This capability is for UW experimental tinkering, and most * * emphatically *not* for sorcerer's apprentices at other sites who * * feel that if a config file capability exists, they must write a* * config file whether or not there is any need for one. * ** * This information is subject to change without notice. Commands * * may be added, removed, or altered. The behavior of comamnds may * * change. Do not use any of this information without consulting me * * first. c-client's defaults have been carefully chosen to be right * * for general-purpose and most special-purpose configurations. If * * you tinker with these defaults, all hell may break loose. * ** * This is not an idle threat. There have been several instances of * * people who ignored these warnings and have gotten burned. * ** * Don't even trust this file to work. Many of the things which can * * be changed by this file can also be changed by the application,* * and it is totally unpredictable which will take precedence. It* * all depends upon how the application is coded. Not only that, you * * may cause the application to crash.* ** * In other words, keep your cotton-pickin' hands off my defaults. * * If it crashes and erases your mail, I don't want to hear about it. * * Consider 'em ``mandatory defaults''. Got a nice ring, eh? :-) If * * you must tinker with defaults, play with the .pinerc and pine.conf * * files in Pine. It's got options galore, all supported for you to * * have fun. They're also documented; so well documented, it takes * * two strong men to carry around all the documentation. ;-) ;-) * ** * Joking aside, you really shouldn't be fooling around with this* * capability. It's dangerous, and you can shoot yourself in the * * foot easily. If you need custom changes, you are better off with * * local source code modifications. Seriously. * ** * One last warning: don't believe anything that you read in this* * document. Every effort has been made to ensure that this document * * is incomplete and inaccurate, and I take no responsibility for any * * glimmers of correct information that may, by some fluke, be here. * ** ** If after reading that you still aren't afraid, try it. Let me know if it works and when I upload 4.7a-1 (which I just Debianized) I'll include instructions on it. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Attention: imapd gpoing back to $HOME as mailbox root
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Joe Block wrote: > Joe Emenaker wrote: > > Actually, what we *really* need is some sort of consensus. I mean, it would > > be pretty nice if imapd and other tools (like procmail) all looked in the > > same default location without any configuration. I know Elm and Pine used > > $HOME/Mail and $HOME/mail at one time. > > > > Surely, I can't be the only one who sees the benefit in having all of the > > tools look in the same location for the "Sent Mail" folder, and "Drafts", > > etc. > > You aren't. Count me as a vote for $HOME/mail $HOME/mail would be OK. Just the mbox driver should be modified then to look in $HOME/mbox instead of $HOME/mail/mbox. Sergey.
Re: Attention: imapd gpoing back to $HOME as mailbox root
At 10:23 PM 1/24/00 -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: >On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Joe Block wrote: > >> You aren't. Count me as a vote for $HOME/mail >> > >I can't keep flip-flopping on this. The default mailbox root will remain >$HOME. You have three choices. > >1. Learn to live with it. (Remember you can always tweak your client.) > >2. Recompile the package to your taste. > >3. Find a different package. > >I hate to be dictatorial but unfortunately their is no solution that will >please everyone. Maybe there is... You could patch the program to set the variable at startup from a parameter or configfile. I haven't seen the source but reading a variable from a parameter or config file at startup shouldn't be hard... Regards, Onno
Re: Attention: imapd gpoing back to $HOME as mailbox root
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Joe Block wrote: > You aren't. Count me as a vote for $HOME/mail > I can't keep flip-flopping on this. The default mailbox root will remain $HOME. You have three choices. 1. Learn to live with it. (Remember you can always tweak your client.) 2. Recompile the package to your taste. 3. Find a different package. I hate to be dictatorial but unfortunately their is no solution that will please everyone. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Attention: imapd gpoing back to $HOME as mailbox root
Btw, the volume on debian-user is to high for me to read on a regular basis so you should cc me if you want to get a quick(er) answer. On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Joe Emenaker wrote: > Argh! Okay. Does anybody want to suggest any other imap daemons that allow > me to set the mailroot to $HOME/mail where it's supposed to be? > You can always recompile the package to do it the way you want to. That is one of the benefits of open source after all. It's a one line change and I provide instructions. > Problem now is that, when you refresh your folder list, you see all of your > files in your home directory. Many of these differ substantially from the > normal "inbox" format. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new slew of > complaints from sysadmins because all of their users are having trouble > opening their "core" folder. :) > Which client are you using? Everyone I use (MS outlook, Netscape, Pine) let's you set this on the client-side. All my folders are in $HOME/mail. I don't see any extraneous junk. A "sysadmin" as opposed to "some random shmoe with the root password" should diligently read documentation. I haven't made a secret of what I've done so it shouldn't come as a surprise. > In all seriousness, though... I think that one of the mantras of > user-friendliness these days is that the user shouldn't be allowed to easily > select something wrong. If imapd uses $HOME for its mail directories, > there's really nothing to prevent the user from being presented with a list > of various files when they ask for a list of their mail folders. > It is the admins responsibility to see that the users have a proper setup. > Up to this point, one of the attractive features of Debian is that it > *fixes* the brain-dead defaults put in by the people who originally wrote > the software. > But in this case, whether or not the default is brain-dead is not easy to determine. To us having the mail root be $HOME/mail seems eminently sensible. But believe me many people disagrreed. > Well, you could fix that by having some sort of big warning in the postinst > script or something that required the user to hit a return so that you could > be sure they see it. > That would be even more obnoxious. People hate useless warnings. Perhaps now we have debconf this could be done in a less intrusive way but even then I would not be sure that people saw it. Besides I already have a big warning in the most natural place for someone to look for it. README.debian. > Actually, what we *really* need is some sort of consensus. I mean, it would > be pretty nice if imapd and other tools (like procmail) all looked in the > same default location without any configuration. I know Elm and Pine used > $HOME/Mail and $HOME/mail at one time. > I can't speak for all Debian developers but I have you the users interests in mind when I work on my packages. If there was a consensus I would adopt it no matter what my personal feelings are. But in this case there simply isn't one. > Surely, I can't be the only one who sees the benefit in having all of the > tools look in the same location for the "Sent Mail" folder, and "Drafts", > etc. > You should make a proposal on the debian-policy list. > Aside from the fact that compartmentalization is a good thing. I mean, > heck... while we're at it, why even bother using /var/spool/mail? Just dump > all mail into /var/spool! :) > It's not symmetric. If the root is $HOME you can store your all you folders in a subdirectory like mail if you like. If it is $HOME/mail someone who wants them in $HOME is out of luck. > But I don't expect this to change anyone's mind, I guess. What I'm really > after is a suggestion for a replacement imapd since I'm obviously going to > have to purge Jaldhar's. I tried the Cyrus-Imap, but wasn't able to get that > to work right out of the box. > You hardly have to take such drastic measures but if the advice above is unsuitable you can also try courier-imapd. Haven't used it so I couldn't tell you its' features though. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Attention: imapd gpoing back to $HOME as mailbox root
Joe Emenaker wrote: > Actually, what we *really* need is some sort of consensus. I mean, it would > be pretty nice if imapd and other tools (like procmail) all looked in the > same default location without any configuration. I know Elm and Pine used > $HOME/Mail and $HOME/mail at one time. > > Surely, I can't be the only one who sees the benefit in having all of the > tools look in the same location for the "Sent Mail" folder, and "Drafts", > etc. You aren't. Count me as a vote for $HOME/mail jpb -- Joe Block <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CREOL System Administrator Social graces are the packet headers of everyday life.
Re: Attention: imapd gpoing back to $HOME as mailbox root
> Although a number of people have supported my decision to make $HOME/mail > the mailbox root for the UW imap server I maintain, I think it will be for > the best overall if I make it $HOME again. Argh! Okay. Does anybody want to suggest any other imap daemons that allow me to set the mailroot to $HOME/mail where it's supposed to be? > Reasons: > > 1) That's what most of the bug reports are about. Problem now is that, when you refresh your folder list, you see all of your files in your home directory. Many of these differ substantially from the normal "inbox" format. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new slew of complaints from sysadmins because all of their users are having trouble opening their "core" folder. :) In all seriousness, though... I think that one of the mantras of user-friendliness these days is that the user shouldn't be allowed to easily select something wrong. If imapd uses $HOME for its mail directories, there's really nothing to prevent the user from being presented with a list of various files when they ask for a list of their mail folders. > 2) That's what the upstream distribution does. So it's less maintenance > headaches for me. Up to this point, one of the attractive features of Debian is that it *fixes* the brain-dead defaults put in by the people who originally wrote the software. > 3) It's what people expect. (Principle of least surprise) Well, you could fix that by having some sort of big warning in the postinst script or something that required the user to hit a return so that you could be sure they see it. Actually, what we *really* need is some sort of consensus. I mean, it would be pretty nice if imapd and other tools (like procmail) all looked in the same default location without any configuration. I know Elm and Pine used $HOME/Mail and $HOME/mail at one time. Surely, I can't be the only one who sees the benefit in having all of the tools look in the same location for the "Sent Mail" folder, and "Drafts", etc. > 4) The reasoning behind the change wasn't that good in the first place. Aside from the fact that compartmentalization is a good thing. I mean, heck... while we're at it, why even bother using /var/spool/mail? Just dump all mail into /var/spool! :) But I don't expect this to change anyone's mind, I guess. What I'm really after is a suggestion for a replacement imapd since I'm obviously going to have to purge Jaldhar's. I tried the Cyrus-Imap, but wasn't able to get that to work right out of the box. - Joe
Re: Attention: imapd gpoing back to $HOME as mailbox root
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Edward Betts wrote: > > Is it still easy to change back to $HOME/mail or preferably $HOME/Mail ? > Does it require modifiying of source code, or just changing a config file? > A config file kind of sort of. See docs/imaprc.txt in the source. The author warns strongly against depending on this functionality. It is probably a better idea to recompile. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Attention: imapd gpoing back to $HOME as mailbox root
"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Although a number of people have supported my decision to make $HOME/mail > the mailbox root for the UW imap server I maintain, I think it will be for > the best overall if I make it $HOME again. Reasons: > > 1) That's what most of the bug reports are about. > 2) That's what the upstream distribution does. So it's less maintenance > headaches for me. > 3) It's what people expect. (Principle of least surprise) > 4) The reasoning behind the change wasn't that good in the first place. > > Expect a new upload tonight or tomorrow. Is it still easy to change back to $HOME/mail or preferably $HOME/Mail ? Does it require modifiying of source code, or just changing a config file? -- I consume, therefore I am
Attention: imapd gpoing back to $HOME as mailbox root
Although a number of people have supported my decision to make $HOME/mail the mailbox root for the UW imap server I maintain, I think it will be for the best overall if I make it $HOME again. Reasons: 1) That's what most of the bug reports are about. 2) That's what the upstream distribution does. So it's less maintenance headaches for me. 3) It's what people expect. (Principle of least surprise) 4) The reasoning behind the change wasn't that good in the first place. Expect a new upload tonight or tomorrow. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
