also sprach Stephen Birch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.01.17.1055
+0100]:
> As a new user, I am puzzled about what happens when stable contains a broken
> package. Since the package doesn't seem to work, will a bug fix be released
> into security.debian.org or do we have to wait until 3.0.0r2?
Wha
I am also having trouble with squirrelmail under Debian.
As a new user, I am puzzled about what happens when stable contains a broken
package. Since the package doesn't seem to work, will a bug fix be released
into security.debian.org or do we have to wait until 3.0.0r2?
Steve
On Thursday 16
also sprach John M Flinchbaugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.01.16.1604 +0100]:
> may i ask, which imap server are you using with this. i've had a
> terrible time getting squirrelmail to match up with an imap daemon.
courier, and it works just fine with other IMAP mailers or SM 1.2.6.
--
Please do
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:04:09 -0500
John M Flinchbaugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> may i ask, which imap server are you using with this. i've had a
> terrible time getting squirrelmail to match up with an imap daemon.
ii uw-imapd 2001adebian-6 remote mail folder access server
I've fo
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 11:31:51PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> I presume you mean either in testing or stable? Unstable has...
> Package: squirrelmail
> Version: 1:1.3.2+1.4.0rc1-1
> ...which is what I've been calling 1.4.0rc1. Maybe doing the same with
> v1.3.2 would help? I'm not sure.
also sprach Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.01.16.0831 +0100]:
> I presume you mean either in testing or stable? Unstable has...
kool. i will check that out...
--
Please do not CC me! Mutt (www.mutt.org) can handle this automatically.
.''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 08:04:06 +0100
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. I would prefer to stay with Debian packages.
I presume you mean either in testing or stable? Unstable has...
{grey@teleute:~} apt-cache show squirrelmail
Package: squirrelmail
Priority: optional
Section: web
also sprach Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.01.16.0716 +0100]:
> Actually, no, I hadn't. My apologies. Odd considering that
> I submitted the original bug. I've not gotten any updates to
> that bug in my mailbox so I had falsely presumed there had been
> none.
It doesn't ma
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 06:56:24 +0100
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did you read the second message to that bug?
Actually, no, I hadn't. My apologies. Odd considering that I submitted
the original bug. I've not gotten any updates to that bug in my mailbox so I
had falsely presum
also sprach Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.01.16.0232 +0100]:
> Did you check the bugs Database?
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=174262
Did you read the second message to that bug?
Commenting that line doesn't do it for me. Leaving that line in
produces empty pag
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 00:12:22 +0100
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> also sprach nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.01.15.2029 +0100]:
> > before I discovered this workaround for my situation I was forced to use
> > php 4.0.x in order to avoid this message.
> It works fine with 1.2.6. Why
martin f krafft said:
> It works fine with 1.2.6. Why would it not with 1.3.2? PHP was not
> updated.
maybe it's a bug, I had the same problem back with 1.2.0rc I think around
12/01, worked fine in php 4.1.x and 4.0.x, but the next release it broke
on 4.1.x(latest at the time I think). Took abou
also sprach nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.01.15.2029 +0100]:
> For me, the resolution was to use mod_php instead of using php as a cgi(which
> is the reccomended configuration for SM according the last docs I saw, I use
> 1.2.9). Though last I checked the debian version also used mod_php. There
>
Try it on a different client. I found the same issue but only with older
browsers.
On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 04:51, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Thomas R. Shemanske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.01.15.1805
>+0100]:
> > > ERROR
> > > You must be logged in to access this page.
> >
> > When you
martin f krafft said:
> after the upgrade to squirrelmail 1.3.2, users can't log in anymore. all
> they see is the message
>
> ERROR
> You must be logged in to access this page.
>
> upon entering the correct user and password. there are no bugs about this,
> and i have no idea where to start th
also sprach Thomas R. Shemanske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.01.15.1906
+0100]:
> I assumed your mail server (e.g. uw-impad(-ssl)) required libc-client2002.
The mail server is courier-imap and it works perfectly.
--
Please do not CC me! Mutt (www.mutt.org) can handle this automatically.
.''`.
also sprach Thomas R. Shemanske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.01.15.1805
+0100]:
> > ERROR
> > You must be logged in to access this page.
>
> When you configured libc-client2002, did you disallow plaintext passwords.
I don't even have that installed. Never did. Squirrelmail 1.2.6 works
fine withou
martin f krafft wrote:
after the upgrade to squirrelmail 1.3.2, users can't log in anymore.
all they see is the message
ERROR
You must be logged in to access this page.
upon entering the correct user and password. there are no bugs about
this, and i have no idea where to start the diagnosis.
after the upgrade to squirrelmail 1.3.2, users can't log in anymore.
all they see is the message
ERROR
You must be logged in to access this page.
upon entering the correct user and password. there are no bugs about
this, and i have no idea where to start the diagnosis. anyone else
come across
19 matches
Mail list logo
