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
m
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
> mailbo
> 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. /var/spool
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:
>> # c
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:
>> #
At Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:20:19 -0800 (PST), David Lang
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 connected network and
> are
>
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
