Feargal Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[snip]
> I had a look at the current road-map, unless somebody else plans to, the
> X-DBMail-PhysMessageID looks straightforward enough for one of my
> inabilities, especially as I need to figure gmime out properly anyway.
I can't remember what this is for
The following bug has been RESOLVED.
==
http://www.dbmail.org/mantis/bug_view_advanced_page.php?bug_id=141
==
Reported By:ajordan
Assigned To:
A BUGNOTE has been added to this bug.
==
http://www.dbmail.org/mantis/bug_view_advanced_page.php?bug_id=141
==
Reported By:ajordan
Assigned To
I just updated the 2.0 Status on the Wiki, and here's what's up:
Not yet in CVS, needs to be done before release
* Bug 97: all messages have RECENT flag in IMAP.
* Bug 91: Infinite loops in both imapd and pop3d.
* Bug 118: dbmail-users -c username -W does not prompt for password on
F
The following bug has been SUBMITTED.
==
http://www.dbmail.org/mantis/bug_view_advanced_page.php?bug_id=142
==
Reported By:aaron
Assigned To:
A BUGNOTE has been added to this bug.
==
http://www.dbmail.org/mantis/bug_view_advanced_page.php?bug_id=141
==
Reported By:ajordan
Assigned To
""[EMAIL PROTECTED]"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Just want to add my take on this subject. It's related to the IMAP
> access control but more in a global way and not on a per-user basis.
>
> It would be real nice if there was a way to disable IMAP search
> capability within dbmail using a con
Just want to add my take on this subject. It's related to the IMAP
access control but more in a global way and not on a per-user basis.
It would be real nice if there was a way to disable IMAP search
capability within dbmail using a config line in dbmail.conf.
The reason is that no matter ho
Right,
Now that clients aren't going to be sending any more cheques, time and sanity
are converging so I finally get time to do some housekeeping and development.
I had a look at the current road-map, unless somebody else plans to, the
X-DBMail-PhysMessageID looks straightforward enough for one
A BUGNOTE has been added to this bug.
==
http://www.dbmail.org/mantis/bug_view_advanced_page.php?bug_id=057
==
Reported By:maXXmaster
Assigned
Aaron Stone wrote:
It precludes multiple header blocks. I think this is OK, but want to make
sure that everyone is aware of it.
I don't see why we would ever want multiple headerblocks. Header caching in
separate tables yes, but that's another matter altogether.
--
11 matches
Mail list logo