Haven't tried this, but as they are browser-accessed, it should be
possible to trial all three in parallel on the same server by assigning
them non-standard ports, at least w/r a non-ssl trial.
It would be less work and risk OTOH, to install all three, select one at a
time to run for trials. Or
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 03/21/03
at 12:53 AM, James A Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>On Thursday, Mar 20, 2003, at 20:34 US/Central, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> - less risk of losing a 'reply' draft if you are a slow typist or take
>> a
>> phone call only to have your connection timed o
Chris Berry wrote:
I've been looking at sqwebmail and squirrelmail as possible candidates
for setting up our webmail interface on top of qmail. Does anyone have
a recommendation one way or the other? (preferably with some reasons why)
This has been a burr in my bottom for a long time. I've trie
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 09:44:37AM -0500, Jesse Cablek wrote:
> SquirrelMail for the interface, and personalities (I use one system user
> for many email addresses and SqWebMail doesn't set Return-Path properly,
> so it's hard to reply to mailing lists).
Setting a 'Return-Path' header won't actu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
- text menu selections instead of/as alternate to somewhat obtuse icons
[...]
Read INSTALL and look for "noimages"
/jesse
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.
Chris Berry wrote:
I've been looking at sqwebmail and squirrelmail as possible candidates
for setting up our webmail interface on top of qmail. Does anyone have
a recommendation one way or the other? (preferably with some reasons why)
I use both.
SqWebMail for the speed, and GPG.
SquirrelMail
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 03/20/03
at 01:03 PM, "Chris Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I've been looking at sqwebmail and squirrelmail as possible candidates
>for setting up our webmail interface on top of qmail. Does anyone have
>a recommendation one way or the other? (preferably with s
Chris Berry wrote:
From: "Michael Bellears" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm getting good reports from people who use all three, so it
> looks like I'm
> going to have to go back and do some more research, see if
> there is some
> better criteria I can use to rule out one or two of them,
> thanks for the
On Thursday, Mar 20, 2003, at 20:34 US/Central, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- less risk of losing a 'reply' draft if you are a slow typist or take
a
phone call only to have your connection timed out (link it to the
system
editor for composition instead of using the built-in?, OR
automatically do
'
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
03/21/03
at 02:19 PM, "Michael Bellears" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
>>Well that accepted a login. Redirected me to a blank page (Lynx and
>>Mozilla) Netscape just said 'the document contained no data'.
>Don't you just love Murphy's Law!!
>>
>>My point: It may or
>Well that accepted a login. Redirected me to a blank page (Lynx and
>Mozilla) Netscape just said 'the document contained no data'.
Don't you just love Murphy's Law!!
>
>My point: It may or may not be a good product. But if the 'demo'
site(s) is/are MS IE-specific, Java-dependent, over->cookie
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
03/21/03
at 01:13 PM, "Michael Bellears" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
>> From which site Netscape and Mozilla *and* Lynx (FWIW) all get:
>>
>> Fatal error: Call to undefined function: _() in
>> /usr/local/www/demo.hub.org/horde/config/registry.php on line 56
>>
>> ?
> From which site Netscape and Mozilla *and* Lynx (FWIW) all get:
>
> Fatal error: Call to undefined function: _() in
> /usr/local/www/demo.hub.org/horde/config/registry.php on line 56
>
> Well it is browser-independent anyway
>
> But that 'demoed' all *I* need to know about it...
htt
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 03/20/03
at 06:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
*SNIP*
>There is a private demo site that is running the latest version of the
>horde applications at hub.org put up and looked after by "Marc G.
>Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Take a look at it. It might help you
>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FWIW, there are some 'none of the above' products out there that look very
neat as well, 'twig' for example.
Oh I know that I looked at a bunch of others, but I rely heavily on google
for training, and it looked like most people were using one of three
(sqwebmail, squirrel
Actually - thanks for starting the furor.
I, for one, had become enamored enough of Squirrelmail's UI that I had
*forgotten* that SQWebmail is cleaner and more efficient underneath.
Maybe we ought to hack on the UI a bit and get that end-user barrier
reduced.
My priorities would be:
- a cle
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 03/20/03
at 05:05 PM, "Chris Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>From: "Michael Bellears" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > I'm getting good reports from people who use all three, so it
>> > looks like I'm
>> > going to have to go back and do some more research, see if
>> > th
Quoting Chris Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| >From: "Michael Bellears" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > > I'm getting good reports from people who use all three, so it
| > > looks like I'm
| > > going to have to go back and do some more research, see if
| > > there is some
| > > better criteria I can use to
From: "Michael Bellears" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >My suggestion would be to install/use them all.
>
> Why the heck would I want to do that? Sounds like alot of extra work.
At the end of the day, you are the person responsible for the
support/maintenance of the system - We can give you advice based o
Chris Berry wrote:
From: Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Why the heck would I want to do that? Sounds like alot of extra work.
squirrelmail and sqwebmail are both available on rpm (though they
conflict because of /var/www/html/webmail). IMP requires a little
RTFM exercise.
Oh, you meant try them a
> >
> >My suggestion would be to install/use them all.
>
> Why the heck would I want to do that? Sounds like alot of extra work.
At the end of the day, you are the person responsible for the
support/maintenance of the system - We can give you advice based on
personal experience, but you are the
From: Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Why the heck would I want to do that? Sounds like alot of extra work.
squirrelmail and sqwebmail are both available on rpm (though they conflict
because of /var/www/html/webmail). IMP requires a little RTFM exercise.
Oh, you meant try them all out, I thought you m
From: "Michael Bellears" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm getting good reports from people who use all three, so it
> looks like I'm
> going to have to go back and do some more research, see if
> there is some
> better criteria I can use to rule out one or two of them,
> thanks for the
> response.
My sugg
From: "Mitch \(WebCob\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
My understanding was that sqwebmail used direct access through it's setuid
access to read the Maildirs directly, thereby reducing server and localloop
network load.
Isnt' setuid usually a "bad thing" as it opens up all kinds of security
holes? (though
My understanding was that sqwebmail used direct access through it's setuid
access to read the Maildirs directly, thereby reducing server and localloop
network load.
It should be faster and run better for more users on a machine I think.
Also, it's compiled C code, and that should count for somethi
> I'm getting good reports from people who use all three, so it
> looks like I'm
> going to have to go back and do some more research, see if
> there is some
> better criteria I can use to rule out one or two of them,
> thanks for the
> response.
My suggestion would be to install/use them
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thursday 20 March 2003 15:00, Scott wrote:
I have some users who are keen to try anything but outlook for
calendaring. Their needs are minor so I'm going to see if they like the
squirrelmail calendaring system.
Is it a shared calendar system? Can one user schedule thing
From: "Michael Bellears" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That looked kind of difficult to setup, any particular reason
> you decided to
> go with that solution?
>
I wouldn't say that it was difficult - There is an extremely helpful
tutorial located here:
http://www.geocities.com/oliversl/imp/
Once you have
>
> That looked kind of difficult to setup, any particular reason
> you decided to
> go with that solution?
>
I wouldn't say that it was difficult - There is an extremely helpful
tutorial located here:
http://www.geocities.com/oliversl/imp/
Once you have all the required prerequisites correc
Chris Berry wrote:
From: Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This has been a burr in my bottom for a long time. I've tried both
with users and squirrelmail has been much better received. Users
liked the layout and control of squirrelmail over sqwebmail.
Unfortunately squirrelmail doesn't have the excel
From: Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This has been a burr in my bottom for a long time. I've tried both with
users and squirrelmail has been much better received. Users liked the
layout and control of squirrelmail over sqwebmail. Unfortunately
squirrelmail doesn't have the excellent SQwebmail filt
From: "Michael Bellears" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
We have been using Horde/Imp in production for over 6 Months, and have
had nothing but positive feedback from users.
That looked kind of difficult to setup, any particular reason you decided to
go with that solution?
Chris Berry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Syste
>
> Chris Berry wrote:
> > I've been looking at sqwebmail and squirrelmail as possible
> candidates
> > for setting up our webmail interface on top of qmail. Does
> anyone have
> > a recommendation one way or the other? (preferably with
> some reasons why)
We have been using Horde/Imp in pro
33 matches
Mail list logo
