On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 02:37:06AM -0500, Jonathan Angliss wrote:
>
> > Can anyone confirm
> > 1: If this is a known problem
>
> Depends on what you'd call a problem I guess. I'd start to find it
> annoying having to scroll down to get to my main folder. Even to the
> point that I've moved all m
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 05:19:22PM -0500, Jonathan Angliss wrote:
> Hello Chris Green,
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2005, you wrote:
>
> >> I have seen questions about this but no answers.
> >>
> >> Sub-folders of INBOX are listed below any folder below INBOX that
> >> comes before INBOX in the alpha
Hello Robert Mortimer,
On Wednesday, June 15, 2005, you wrote:
[..]
> My point is that this has nothing to do with my original problem. To
> re-state it :- Squirrelmail appears to incorrectly carry out the
> folder sort for the side bar if folders exist at the same level as
> INBOX that are alphab
Hello Chris Green,
On Wednesday, June 15, 2005, you wrote:
>> I have seen questions about this but no answers.
>>
>> Sub-folders of INBOX are listed below any folder below INBOX that
>> comes before INBOX in the alphabet. This would seem to be a problem
>> with the mechanism that places INBOX at
> Note my IMAP servier setting is dovecot. I have noticed that some of
> the INBOX handling PHP code is conditional on setting courrier.
>
> Additional questions
> 1: How good is SM's Dovecot support?
Server-specific segments of code are used to work around server "quirks",
bugs, and inconsistenci
>> It's fixed already (a long time ago) in 1.5.x.
>>
> How come Fedora 3 still ships with SquirrelMail version 1.4.4-1.FC3 ?
I would imagine it's because 1.5.x is considered the "development" tree,
while 1.4.x is considered "stable". 1.4.4 is the latest stable release.
In other words, Fedora 3 i
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 03:35:10PM +0200, Marc Groot Koerkamp wrote:
>
> Chris Green wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 01:47:31PM +0100, Robert Mortimer wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> 1: INBOX designated base folder for other protocols such as POP and as
> >> a location for default mail delivery. I may be
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:31:11PM +0100, Robert Mortimer wrote:
> > As I said elsewhere I really don't see why any protocol requires any
> > sort of special folder. I thought that where the hierarchy was rooted
> > was up to the IMAP server implementation (not to mention that the MUA
> > could 'm
SOLUTION / FIX
On 6/15/05, Marc Groot Koerkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Robert Mortimer wrote:
> > Thank you Mark for the answer
> >
> > A: It is a known issue and will be fixed in 1.5.x
>
> It's fixed already (a long time ago) in 1.5.x.
>
How come Fedora 3 still ships with SquirrelMail vers
Chris Green wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 01:47:31PM +0100, Robert Mortimer wrote:
>
>>
>> 1: INBOX designated base folder for other protocols such as POP and as
>> a location for default mail delivery. I may be wrong but my understanding
>> was that this was originally also the store's root an
On 6/15/05, Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 01:47:31PM +0100, Robert Mortimer wrote:
> >
> > 1: INBOX designated base folder for other protocols such as POP and as
> > a location for default mail delivery. I may be wrong but my
> > understanding was that this was or
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 01:47:31PM +0100, Robert Mortimer wrote:
>
> 1: INBOX designated base folder for other protocols such as POP and as
> a location for default mail delivery. I may be wrong but my
> understanding was that this was originally also the store's root and
> no folders could be cre
On 6/15/05, Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:49:15AM +0100, Robert Mortimer wrote:
> >
> > It is not just special folders. A folder created at the same level as
> > INBOX that is alphabeticly between A and INBOX will be displayed below
> > INBOX and inherit INBOX'
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:49:15AM +0100, Robert Mortimer wrote:
>
> It is not just special folders. A folder created at the same level as
> INBOX that is alphabeticly between A and INBOX will be displayed below
> INBOX and inherit INBOX's sub folders. I am tring to solvs an apparent
> sort proble
On 6/15/05, Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:56:47AM +0100, Robert Mortimer wrote:
> > On 6/15/05, Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 09:23:16AM +0100, Robert Mortimer wrote:
> > > > On 6/15/05, Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
On 6/15/05, Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:06:12AM +0200, Fredrik Jervfors wrote:
> > > The whole idea of 'special' folders seems user unfriendly and unwanted
> > > to me. I *hate* MUAs which create all sorts of their own folders all over
> > > my home director
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:56:47AM +0100, Robert Mortimer wrote:
> > This is one of the issues I have with the way most MUAs and/or IMAP
> > servers seem to work. Each has its own (rather restrictive?) view of
> > how things should work and imposes that on the user.
> >
>
> A default delivery po
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:56:47AM +0100, Robert Mortimer wrote:
> On 6/15/05, Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 09:23:16AM +0100, Robert Mortimer wrote:
> > > On 6/15/05, Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:59:26AM +0100, Rober
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:06:12AM +0200, Fredrik Jervfors wrote:
> > The whole idea of 'special' folders seems user unfriendly and unwanted
> > to me. I *hate* MUAs which create all sorts of their own folders all over
> > my home directory and an IMAP system that does the same (even though they
>
On 6/15/05, Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 09:23:16AM +0100, Robert Mortimer wrote:
> > On 6/15/05, Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:59:26AM +0100, Robert Mortimer wrote:
> > > > I have seen questions about this but no answers
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 09:23:16AM +0100, Robert Mortimer wrote:
> On 6/15/05, Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:59:26AM +0100, Robert Mortimer wrote:
> > > I have seen questions about this but no answers.
> > >
> > > Sub-folders of INBOX are listed below any fol
> The whole idea of 'special' folders seems user unfriendly and unwanted
> to me. I *hate* MUAs which create all sorts of their own folders all over
> my home directory and an IMAP system that does the same (even though they
> may not be in my home space) is almost as bad. Why should I always hav
On 6/15/05, Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:59:26AM +0100, Robert Mortimer wrote:
> > I have seen questions about this but no answers.
> >
> > Sub-folders of INBOX are listed below any folder below INBOX that
> > comes before INBOX in the alphabet. This would see
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:59:26AM +0100, Robert Mortimer wrote:
> I have seen questions about this but no answers.
>
> Sub-folders of INBOX are listed below any folder below INBOX that
> comes before INBOX in the alphabet. This would seem to be a problem
> with the mechanism that places INBOX at
I have seen questions about this but no answers.
Sub-folders of INBOX are listed below any folder below INBOX that
comes before INBOX in the alphabet. This would seem to be a problem
with the mechanism that places INBOX at the top and then sorts
subsequent folders below.
When
$list_special_folder
25 matches
Mail list logo
