LuKreme put forth on 2/12/2010 10:08 AM:
> On 12-Feb-2010, at 08:48, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>
>> Tell me about this "top-secure" aspect of Squirrelmail again. ;)
>
> The fact that some spammers are able to get into email accounts and send spam
> via squirrelmail has nothing to do with the security
On 02/12/2010 10:48 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Tell me about this "top-secure" aspect of Squirrelmail again. ;)
> User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.15
Spammers regularly phish for ISP account information and then use those
credentials to send spam via webmail and SMTP auth. We see this
frequently, an
On 12-Feb-2010, at 08:48, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
> Tell me about this "top-secure" aspect of Squirrelmail again. ;)
The fact that some spammers are able to get into email accounts and send spam
via squirrelmail has nothing to do with the security of squirrelmail itself. In
nerely all, if not al
Thijssen put forth on 2/9/2010 4:19 AM:
> - If they like flashy GUI bullshit like HTML-mail and WYSIWYG
> formatted emails and spam and commerce, then don't use Squirrelmail.
> - If they focuss on actual text content and plaintext emails (the way
> it should be), then squirrelmail is your Number O
Hi!
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:47 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> On 8-Feb-2010, at 17:34, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:
>>
>> 100% of the servers I have access to, have,
>> at least once in the last year, been scanned by a bot (or person, who
>> knows) for /roundcoube or similar
>
> And? I have thousa
On 8-Feb-2010, at 17:34, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:
>
> 100% of the servers I have access to, have,
> at least once in the last year, been scanned by a bot (or person, who
> knows) for /roundcoube or similar
And? I have thousands of servers trying to access my machines via sshd every
s
Hi!
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On 09/02/2010 16:00, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:
>>>
>>> Possibly, although there are different reasons for detesting OE and
>>> Outlook.
>>> OE and Outlook are crap desktop clients; most experienced high-volume
>>> mail
>>> users
On 09/02/2010 16:00, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:
Possibly, although there are different reasons for detesting OE and Outlook.
OE and Outlook are crap desktop clients; most experienced high-volume mail
users prefer better clients such as Thunderbird. If your users also detest
Thunderbird
Hi!
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On 09/02/2010 11:53, Thijssen wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:28, Mark Goodge
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But for day-to-day use as a long-term replacement for a desktop
>>> client, or for any user who gets a much larger than normal volume
>>>
On 09/02/2010 11:53, Thijssen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:28, Mark Goodge
wrote:
But for day-to-day use as a long-term replacement for a desktop
client, or for any user who gets a much larger than normal volume
of mail,
What do you mean by that?
Hundreds, or even thousands, of messages
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:28, Mark Goodge wrote:
> As a lightweight webmail client, to be used as an infrequent alternative to
> a desktop client (eg, for collecting your mail when out and about with only
> web access), Squirrelmail is perfectly adequate for most users.
I use it for huge amounts
On 2010-02-09, Thijssen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:43, K bharathan
> wrote:
>> yes i've used and know it's too good; but all those for small number
of
>> users; i want to use it at an ISP level; at ISP level i require some
>> addons like quota/autorespond etc..i'll give a try to squirrelma
On 09/02/2010 10:19, Thijssen wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 16:52, K bharathan wrote:
of course this is a non postfix topic; but i'd like to know from the
experienced which webmail is best for a postfix pop server
It mostly depends on the type of users you have;
- If they like flashy GUI bul
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:43, K bharathan wrote:
> yes i've used and know it's too good; but all those for small number of
> users; i want to use it at an ISP level; at ISP level i require some addons
> like quota/autorespond etc..i'll give a try to squirrelmail
XS4ALL, the largest Dutch ISP, use
yes i've used and know it's too good; but all those for small number of
users; i want to use it at an ISP level; at ISP level i require some addons
like quota/autorespond etc..i'll give a try to squirrelmail
thanks
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Thijssen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 16:52,
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 16:52, K bharathan wrote:
> of course this is a non postfix topic; but i'd like to know from the
> experienced which webmail is best for a postfix pop server
It mostly depends on the type of users you have;
- If they like flashy GUI bullshit like HTML-mail and WYSIWYG
form
Hi!
Sorry for keeping the "off-topic"... but I had to answer
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Kay put forth on 2/1/2010 11:49 AM:
>
>> In my job (hosting company) I see boxes exploited via roundcube all the
>> time. Squirrelmail? Not one so far. Part of the reason is
K bharathan put forth on 2/2/2010 10:49 AM:
> thanks for all
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Carlos Williams wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Charles Marcus
>> wrote:
>>> On 2010-02-01 7:17 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
All of that said, I don't find I'm lacking any functionality
thanks for all
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Carlos Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Charles Marcus
> wrote:
> > On 2010-02-01 7:17 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >> All of that said, I don't find I'm lacking any functionality with my
> current
> >> version of Roundcube.
> >
> > T
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Charles Marcus
wrote:
> On 2010-02-01 7:17 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> All of that said, I don't find I'm lacking any functionality with my current
>> version of Roundcube.
>
> Then you haven't looked at it... the new features are really nice...
I would say this is
On 2010-02-01 7:17 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> All of that said, I don't find I'm lacking any functionality with my current
> version of Roundcube.
Then you haven't looked at it... the new features are really nice...
> > http://roundcube.net/
>
> +1
>
> If you're going to offer webmail, you may as well offer IMAP folders instead
> of
> POP. JMHO.
>
I think it depends upon the requirements. For very simple mail and setup, +1
roundcube. I have been using horde for some time for my clients (as they use
Ralf Hildebrandt put forth on 2/1/2010 4:31 PM:
> That's probably some sort of twisted Debian humor .)
I wish it was humor... Debian Stable always lags pretty seriously behind the
cutting edge release versions of a lot of packages. Then again, from what I
understand, so do RHEL, CentOS, SLES, a
Charles Marcus put forth on 2/1/2010 4:17 PM:
> On 2010-02-01 4:05 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> My Roundcube package is currently up to date, and it is a standard
>> Debian package:
>>
>> [02:21:52][r...@greer]/$ aptitude show roundcube
>> Package: roundcube
>> New: yes
>> State: installed
>> Automa
On 1-Feb-2010, at 13:39, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
> Carlos Williams put forth on 2/1/2010 10:04 AM:
>
>> I recommend and prefer Roundcube.
>>
>> http://roundcube.net/
>
> +1
>
> If you're going to offer webmail, you may as well offer IMAP folders instead
> of POP. JMHO.
Yeah, I have to say I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
mouss さんは書きました:
>
> you mean things like
> GET /roundcube-0.2//bin/msgimport
> GET /round//bin/msgimport
Not lately.
Most recently, they're looking for version info:
GET /rc/README
GET /webmail/README
GET /roundcube/README
* fakessh :
> > Eh? 0.3.1 is the current version, so how is 0.2.2 'up to date'?
>
> attention
>
> 0.3.1 is the current version , so 0.2.2 is 'up to date'
That's probably some sort of twisted Debian humor .)
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:17:49 -0500, Charles Marcus
wrote:
> On 2010-02-01 4:05 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> My Roundcube package is currently up to date, and it is a standard
>> Debian package:
>>
>> [02:21:52][r...@greer]/$ aptitude show roundcube
>> Package: roundcube
>> New: yes
>> State: insta
On 2010-02-01 4:05 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> My Roundcube package is currently up to date, and it is a standard
> Debian package:
>
> [02:21:52][r...@greer]/$ aptitude show roundcube
> Package: roundcube
> New: yes
> State: installed
> Automatically installed: no
> Version: 0.2.2-1~bpo50+1
Eh? 0
K bharathan wrote:
hi all
of course this is a non postfix topic; but i'd like to know from the
experienced which webmail is best for a postfix pop server
i'd also have it configured for user soft quota
guidance appreciated
I would add from my side... Horde IMP. If you need good replacement for
Kay put forth on 2/1/2010 11:49 AM:
> In my job (hosting company) I see boxes exploited via roundcube all the
> time. Squirrelmail? Not one so far. Part of the reason is that
> squirrelmail comes with RHEL, so it's kept up to date automatically,
> while customers install their own roundcube and
Carlos Williams put forth on 2/1/2010 10:04 AM:
> I recommend and prefer Roundcube.
>
> http://roundcube.net/
+1
If you're going to offer webmail, you may as well offer IMAP folders instead of
POP. JMHO.
I'm an ex Squirrelmail user and switched to Roundcube, mainly for the nicer user
interfac
On 02/01/2010 06:49 PM, Kay wrote:
On 01/02/10 17:09, j debert wrote:
it seems that roundcube is popular.
It seems to be most popular among bots as well, according to what my
apache logs say. I don't have roundcube but there are frequent
attempts to get to php scripts down in the roundcube dire
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:39:49 +0100, mouss wrote:
> j debert a écrit :
>> it seems that roundcube is popular.
>>
>> It seems to be most popular among bots as well, according to what my
>> apache logs say. I don't have roundcube but there are frequent
>> attempts to get to php scripts down in the r
j debert a écrit :
> it seems that roundcube is popular.
>
> It seems to be most popular among bots as well, according to what my
> apache logs say. I don't have roundcube but there are frequent
> attempts to get to php scripts down in the roundcube directories. I'd
> probably see orders of magnit
Quoting Kay :
On 01/02/10 17:09, j debert wrote:
it seems that roundcube is popular.
It seems to be most popular among bots as well, according to what my
apache logs say. I don't have roundcube but there are frequent
attempts to get to php scripts down in the roundcube directories. I'd
probabl
On 01/02/10 17:09, j debert wrote:
it seems that roundcube is popular.
It seems to be most popular among bots as well, according to what my
apache logs say. I don't have roundcube but there are frequent
attempts to get to php scripts down in the roundcube directories. I'd
probably see orders of
it seems that roundcube is popular.
It seems to be most popular among bots as well, according to what my
apache logs say. I don't have roundcube but there are frequent
attempts to get to php scripts down in the roundcube directories. I'd
probably see orders of magnitude more if it weren't for fail
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
Le Lundi 1 Février 2010 10:04:20, Carlos Williams a écrit :
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:52 AM, K bharathan wrote:
hi all
of course this is a non postfix topic; but i'd like to know from the
experienced which webmail is best for a postfix pop server
i'd als
Le Lundi 1 Février 2010 10:04:20, Carlos Williams a écrit :
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:52 AM, K bharathan wrote:
> > hi all
> > of course this is a non postfix topic; but i'd like to know from the
> > experienced which webmail is best for a postfix pop server
> > i'd also have it configured for u
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:52 AM, K bharathan wrote:
> hi all
> of course this is a non postfix topic; but i'd like to know from the
> experienced which webmail is best for a postfix pop server
> i'd also have it configured for user soft quota
> guidance appreciated
Postfix is not the POP/IMAP ser
hi all
of course this is a non postfix topic; but i'd like to know from the
experienced which webmail is best for a postfix pop server
i'd also have it configured for user soft quota
guidance appreciated
thanks
42 matches
Mail list logo
