Re: [SM-USERS] Load Balancing and session side effect

2005-04-29 Thread Tuc at Beach House
> > I can reproduce "Warning: Unknown(): Your script possibly relies on a > session side-effect which existed until PHP 4.2.3." error only if I enable > session.auto_start. I think this means that session.auto_start=1 is not > solution to your problems or we have to fix something in squirrelmail.

Re: [SM-USERS] Load Balancing and session side effect

2005-04-28 Thread Tuc at Beach House
> > Ports, but according to php-info : > > > > './configure' '--enable-versioning' '--enable-memory-limit' > > '--with-layout=GNU' '--with-config-file-scan-dir=/usr/local/etc/php' > > '--disable-all' '--with-regex=php' '--with-openssl=/usr' > > '--with-openssl-dir=/usr' '--with-apxs=/usr/local/

Re: [SM-USERS] Load Balancing and session side effect

2005-04-28 Thread Tuc at Beach House
> > > Is this possible even with plain NFS if both servers point to the same > > session store over NFS? I thought NFS was designed to avoid that. Is > > the only solution to run NFS on top of something like GFS? What a hassle. > > Yes. However it is that PHP prevents multiple scripts from ac

Re: [SM-USERS] Load Balancing and session side effect

2005-04-28 Thread Tuc at Beach House
> > > - User 1 logs in to webserver 1, gets session id abc123 > > > > - User 2 logs in to webserver 2, gets session id abc123 and trashes > > current contents of abc123 session file > > If using NFS as the session store, you don't even have to get this specific > -- one > user using "his

Re: [SM-USERS] Load Balancing and session side effect

2005-04-28 Thread Tuc at Beach House
> On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 01:01, Jonathan Angliss wrote: > > > - User 1 logs in to webserver 1, gets session id abc123 > > - User 2 logs in to webserver 2, gets session id abc123 and trashes > > current contents of abc123 session file > > Can this happen? What is the probability of two diff

Re: [SM-USERS] Load Balancing and session side effect

2005-04-28 Thread Tuc at Beach House
> > You WILL get goofy behaviour with this due to NFS's lack of flock() > > support. SQM > > will work, but strange things will happen (messages being deleted from the > > wrong > > folder, for example) > > I was going to say "that should never happen", but if one web server > clobbers another'

Re: [SM-USERS] Load Balancing and session side effect

2005-04-28 Thread Tuc at Beach House
> > > No, why? Since I've moved sessions to an NFS shared point that > > should be fine. No? > > You WILL get goofy behaviour with this due to NFS's lack of flock() support. > > SQM will work, but strange things will happen (messages being deleted from > the wrong folder, for example) when s

Re: [SM-USERS] Load Balancing and session side effect

2005-04-28 Thread Tuc at Beach House
> > > You forgot to provide list of installed plugins. SquirrelMail stock > plugins should not create this error. Remove all enabled plugins and > enable them one by one. > > >>> No plugins installed. > >> > >> what modifications are made in squirrelmail scripts? > >> >

Re: [SM-USERS] Load Balancing and session side effect

2005-04-27 Thread Tuc at Beach House
> > >> > >> You forgot to provide list of installed plugins. SquirrelMail stock > >> plugins should not create this error. Remove all enabled plugins and > >> enable them one by one. > >> > > No plugins installed. > > what modifications are made in squirrelmail scripts? > None, fresh

Re: [SM-USERS] Load Balancing and session side effect

2005-04-27 Thread Tuc at Beach House
> > You forgot to provide list of installed plugins. SquirrelMail stock > plugins should not create this error. Remove all enabled plugins and > enable them one by one. > No plugins installed. Tuc --- SF.Net email is s

[SM-USERS] Load Balancing and session side effect

2005-04-26 Thread Tuc at Beach House
Hi, Trying to install from scratch a new Squirrelmail 1.4.4 and PHP 4.3.11 from FreeBSD ports. I'm also trying to do it behind a load balancer. I've changed the session.save_path to a directory the two servers can see, they are running lockd/statd... And I think I have it 99% working excep

Re: [SM-USERS] Palm Treo 600 Email Viewing

2004-11-03 Thread Tuc at Beach House
> > > do you have setting for palm treo 600 to view emails I can download > > thepage however it is not possible to view the page,,it is squeezed > > tight very minimal. thanks > > > SquirrelMail is... horrid.. on a screen that small. Consider alternative > imap readers; I myself am pretty

Re: [SM-USERS] Allowed memory size of 8000000 bytes exhausted

2004-04-20 Thread Tuc at Beach House
> > > > Problem I have with this is I can use 1.4.2 and have it access 10's > > of thousands of emails, but in 1.5.0 CVS I can't go more than 2500. > Wasoccurred > > something done to make major changes in memory between 1.4.X and 1.5? > > > > Thanks, Tuc > > Not sure, But I had

Re: [SM-USERS] Allowed memory size of 8000000 bytes exhausted

2004-04-20 Thread Tuc at Beach House
> > > hi everyone, i use php 4.2.2, Apache/2.0.40 mod_ssl/2.0.40 and squirrel > > 1.4.1 > > when i try to attach a file or to see a file that someone send me in an > > email i got this error: > > Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 800 bytes exhausted (tried to > > allocate 1860947 bytes) > >

Re: [SM-USERS] Theme/Style for WebPhones

2004-04-15 Thread Tuc at Beach House
> Or squirrelmail noframes > > cvs -d:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvsroot/squirrelmail \ > co -r SM_Devel_NoFrames squirrelmail > > if you do cvs command right now, you might need to fix src/left_main.php > What do I need to do to fix it? It does still seem like its frames thou

[SM-USERS] Theme/Style for WebPhones

2004-04-15 Thread Tuc at Beach House
Hi, I was wondering if anyone has written a Theme/Style sheet that makes it easier to use items like the Palm Treo 600 with Blazer. I have 2 issues right now : 1) Frames makes it difficult to use. 2) The refresh of the left bar interferes with things at times. I t