Re: [Dbmail] #noattach mode

2009-05-11 Thread Paul J Stevens
Michael Monnerie wrote: > On Montag 11 Mai 2009 Josh Marshall wrote: >> Not sure on your setup, but if you have access to multiple IP >> addresses, you can put a rule on the firewall to forward port 110 to >> e.g. 111 on the internal server. Otherwise default to internal >> clients connect to port

Re: [Dbmail] mysterious from-address

2009-05-11 Thread Marc Dirix
My Point was not the part about not being able to decode, but the part where dbmail (or gmime) adds an @host.domain after the non-decodable address. This confuses things. -- Groet, Marc Dirix On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 10:44:42PM +0200, Paul J Stevens wrote: > John Fawcett wrote: > > It's likely

Re: [Dbmail] #noattach mode

2009-05-11 Thread Michael Monnerie
On Montag 11 Mai 2009 Paul J Stevens wrote: > Of course, you could have some mailclient use the virtual userid > directly without using usermap, but with usermap all you'd have to > explain to your mobile device users would be to use an other > servername. But that servername needs another IP, rig

Re: [Dbmail] #noattach mode

2009-05-11 Thread Paul J Stevens
Michael Monnerie wrote: > On Montag 11 Mai 2009 Paul J Stevens wrote: >> Of course, you could have some mailclient use the virtual userid >> directly without using usermap, but with usermap all you'd have to >> explain to your mobile device users would be to use an other >> servername. > > But tha

Re: [Dbmail] mysterious from-address

2009-05-11 Thread John Fawcett
Marc Dirix wrote: > My Point was not the part about not being able to decode, but the part > where dbmail (or gmime) adds an @host.domain after the non-decodable > address. This confuses things. > Marc I'm not convinced that it is dbmail or gmime adding a host part. Do you have an example of the

Re: [Dbmail] #noattach mode

2009-05-11 Thread Jonathan Feally
Not to burst anyone's bubble, but we are talking about having dbmail intelligently rewrite messages for clients on demand. This could pose a big problem with the fact that all messages in a mailbox would have to be rewritten before a simple list command could be fulfilled as the size of the me

Re: [Dbmail] #noattach mode

2009-05-11 Thread Michael Monnerie
On Montag 11 Mai 2009 Paul J Stevens wrote: > > Not to be nasty with the name, but I think #mobile is not as good a > > name as #noattach, as I might want #mobile mode also when I'm at an > > internet cafe, or other environment. > > ?? Most people are mobile when in a cafe. Also #mobile sounds bett

Re: [Dbmail] #noattach mode

2009-05-11 Thread Michael Monnerie
On Dienstag 12 Mai 2009 Jonathan Feally wrote: > This could > pose a big problem with the fact that all messages in a mailbox would > have to be rewritten before a simple list command could be fulfilled > as the size of the messages would be different than what is stored > already in a column. We