Hi everybody,
Do the old 2.2.x flags mean the same thing in 2.3.7? I'm trying to give
a user maximum on a mailbox except for mailbox deletion. I thought
lrswipte would do the trick but if I sam the box like that it also
acquires d which used to mean allow for delete of both messages and
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 13:47 -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
Use SMTP to breech the unreliable link! It's safe, proven, and designed
for that very task!
... and not an option at some mail providers, which are mandatory for
some people because they are their employer whose mail they must read.
For
Do the old 2.2.x flags mean the same thing in 2.3.7? I'm trying to give
a user maximum on a mailbox except for mailbox deletion. I thought
lrswipte would do the trick but if I sam the box like that it also
acquires d which used to mean allow for delete of both messages and
mailbox. So,
One user is out sick, another user asked me to search the first user's
email for a specific message. If I had found that message and the second
user wanted to access that message in the second user's normal INBOX
would I do this:
# cd /var/spool/imap/a/user/auser
# cp 99.
On 11/13/2009 09:46 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
One user is out sick, another user asked me to search the first user's
email for a specific message. If I had found that message and the second
user wanted to access that message in the second user's normal INBOX
would I do this:
# cd
On 13/11/09 08:46 -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
One user is out sick, another user asked me to search the first user's
email for a specific message. If I had found that message and the second
user wanted to access that message in the second user's normal INBOX
would I do this:
# cd
At Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:20:19 -0800 (PST), David Lang
david.l...@digitalinsight.com wrote:
Subject: Re: Exec'ing a script from Cyrus when imapd has a client
you have focused on the fact that he wants to use fetchmail as the transport
between the full-time internet and his intermittently
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 03:07:00PM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
I believe those of you who are trying to defend the OP's scheme are also
failing to understand and even define the actual problem at hand.
That would be everyone else on this list I believe. Because we
realise that the real world
