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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
21 matches
Mail list logo
