Bernhard Herzog schrieb: > Hi all, > > On 15.01.2009, Sascha Wilde wrote: >>> But should it just internally convert "owner" to "username" when >>> replying? >> From our experience this would be a very good idea. Many clients >> recognize the username and handle those ACLs differently in there UI >> (for example they don't offer them for editing). But they don't >> understand "owner". > > To work around this, we created a patch that tries to avoid the owner ACL > entries. It does not translate between "owner" and username in the imap-acl > plugin, but tries not to automatically create an ACL owner entries. Having > implemented this patch now, I wonder whether the translation wouldn't have > been simpler and better. Anyway, the main goal of the patch is to work > around the problems we've observed with some clients when they > encounter "owner" ACL entries so that we can get on with testing. > > I don't think the patch is the right solution to the problem, but I've > included it anyway. Maybe it's useful for a discussion. > > Cheers, > > Bernhard > > Hi,
i dont think you should mess around what clients think where should this end , the technical right and most clear description is owner, username can be very wide interpreted and may lead to technical problems in reading imap-acl i.e from horde imp or other mail clients later, as far i remember owner is use i.e in exchange too what may help would be is additionial username info to owner dont no if this can be coded. Using shared folder , a client has to understand how to use the system and read faqs, this is the same on all exist shared folder using mail/imap systems just my thoughts no flame anyway thx for coding -- Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer Germany/Munich/Bavaria
