Re: [SM-USERS] SM deployment

2003-06-29 Thread Chris Hilts
> Well my dilemma is that I'm evaluating squirrel for to support 10,000 > users. > I've installed WU-IMAPD on the same server as that of SM and noticed that > SM > had created files that store the SENT, DRAFT and TRASH folders relative to > SM and .mailboxlist to store the folder names. SquirrelM

Re: [SM-USERS] SM deployment

2003-06-29 Thread Gopi Balasingam
ing information maintained by the SM server? Regards, Gopi From: Jon Angliss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Gopi Balasingam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SM-USERS] SM deployment Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:58:12 -0500 Hello Gopi, On Sunday, June 29, 2003, Gopi Ba

Re: [SM-USERS] SM deployment

2003-06-29 Thread Chris Hilts
> mail users have to be recreated on the SM webmail server? How is the > authentication handled here? Is it standard Uni*x /etc/passwd or The auth info (login and password) are passed to the IMAP server, which performs the actual authentication. So no, you don't need to recreate accounts or home

Re: [SM-USERS] SM deployment

2003-06-29 Thread Jon Angliss
Hello Gopi, On Sunday, June 29, 2003, Gopi Balasingam wrote... > Hi there, > After having installed SM and checking out it's feature list, I have q few > question regarding a practical deployment approach: > 1) The mail server POP/IMAP is installed on a separate server while the SM > Webmail is to

[SM-USERS] SM deployment

2003-06-29 Thread Gopi Balasingam
Hi there, After having installed SM and checking out it's feature list, I have q few question regarding a practical deployment approach: 1) The mail server POP/IMAP is installed on a separate server while the SM Webmail is to be installed on another server in a DMZ. In this case, do the mail use

[SM-USERS] SM deployment

2003-06-29 Thread Gopi Balasingam
Hi there, After having installed SM and checking out it's feature list, I have q few question regarding a practical deployment approach: 1) The mail server POP/IMAP is installed on a separate server while the SM Webmail is to be installed on another server in a DMZ. In this case, do the mail use

Re: [SM-USERS] SM deployment details

2003-06-27 Thread Alexandros Vellis
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:38:53 -0500 (CDT) "Chris Winterrowd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another concern I have is if we host all of the preferences on a > single database cluster, when a user logs in, the preferences will be > subject to network latency - this is ok if it is only during login or

RE: [SM-USERS] SM deployment details

2003-06-26 Thread p dont think
> It does, like multilogin, allow you to change any and all settings in > SquirrelMail's main config file on a per-domain or even per-user basis > (multilogin does it, of course, on a per-IMAP server basis). Its original > intent was as you guessed, but it has evolved to offer a lot more > flexibi

RE: [SM-USERS] SM deployment details

2003-06-26 Thread p dont think
> > If the multilogin plugin stored preferences (and address books and > > personal dictionaries) into a format such as > > data/imap-server/imap-username - we might be able to use it, instead > > of creating multiple instances of SM.. but since we'd want to change > > configuration options based o

RE: [SM-USERS] SM deployment details

2003-06-25 Thread p dont think
> > The big issue I've run into in this scenario is how to install a > > single instance of SM and have it connect to multiple servers and > > store the preferences on a per post office basis- the multilogin > > plugin doesn't change the way preferences are stored (i.e., if my > > login is 'bobsmit

Re: [SM-USERS] SM deployment details

2003-06-25 Thread Jon Angliss
Hello Chris, On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, Chris Winterrowd wrote... >> [..] Also you might want to check to see if your IMAP server has >> support for server side sorting, and if so, enabling it in the >> SquirrelMail configuration (it's under the General options iirc in >> config/conf.pl). > We

Re: [SM-USERS] SM deployment details

2003-06-25 Thread Chris Winterrowd
On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, Jon Angliss wrote... > PHP 4.3.x is supposed to handle multi-byte characters a little better > than the earlier versions, so that'd be a good start. For a trial, you > might want to try throwing 1.4.1[cvs], or 1.5.0[cvs], against the same > user, as there have been som