Re: X11, VNC performance (was: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question)
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Benjamin Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Karl Runge is on the right track. X is very senstive to latency. The bandwidth requirements can actually be fairly minor for simple constructs (e.g., a GNU Emacs window), but a high-latency link will kill you. Yes, and I wanted to point out that tcl/tk apps (like exmh) and big motif-ish apps (like netscape) usually become unbearable under dialup-level latency (100-300ms). OTOH, I find the response of lightweight gui X apps (e.g. Xaw based ones like my mail reader) to be acceptable under most conditions. Then again, having used remote computers almost daily for the past 18 years has likely made me very patient wrt interactive response :-) I did an exmh test just now to a ssh/vnc landing pad I have in the west coast (120ms ping times from here): exmh thru a ssh X redir (no vnc) was OK for the changing text, but the gui widget aspects (dialog popups, menus, etc) were painfully slow (e.g. often 2-6 secs to map the new windows). exmh via vnc on the ssh link had much better response (e.g. 1 sec to map the new windoes), most all aspects seemed tolerable/usable. (it goes w/o saying no fancy backgrounds or polished metal, translucifying, wm's for the vnc session (I use fvwm + solid bg)) Of course the response will never be as good as running exmh on the local box, but I am firm believer in stretching my MUA's view of my mail over to my remote location (the fastest being ssh + a cmdline MUA, like pine), rather than teeing my mailbox to my remote location. But, of course, YMMV. * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: X11, VNC performance (was: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question)
dxpc will speed things up even more. dxpc compresses the X *protocol* that gets you more then compressing the bits. Here's some directions I wrote to remind myself: - remotely working on a laptop login to work system set display to laptop's IP dxpc -f set display to work system:8 on laptop: dxpc -f work system back on work system run X apps to display on laptop - I used to use term once upon a time too. You have to modify your app to do that. Those days are over thanks to things like slirp (a slip emulators). Karl J. Runge said: I did an exmh test just now to a ssh/vnc landing pad I have in the west coast (120ms ping times from here): exmh thru a ssh X redir (no vnc) was OK for the changing text, but the gui widget aspects (dialog popups, menus, etc) were painfully slow (e.g. often 2-6 secs to map the new windows). exmh via vnc on the ssh link had much better response (e.g. 1 sec to map the new windoes), most all aspects seemed tolerable/usable. (it goes w/o saying no fancy backgrounds or polished metal, translucifying, wm's for the vnc session (I use fvwm + solid bg)) -- --- Tom Buskey * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: X11, VNC performance (was: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question)
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, at 8:11pm, Tom Buskey wrote: dxpc will speed things up even more. dxpc compresses the X *protocol* that gets you more then compressing the bits. We're not talking about size-of-transactions here but the sensitivity to latency -- which, roughly speaking, might be measured by the number-of-transactions. Does dxpc do anything about that? -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: X11, VNC performance (was: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question)
Benjamin Scott said: On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, at 8:11pm, Tom Buskey wrote: dxpc will speed things up even more. dxpc compresses the X *protocol* that gets you more then compressing the bits. We're not talking about size-of-transactions here but the sensitivity to latency -- which, roughly speaking, might be measured by the number-of-transactions. Does dxpc do anything about that? I believe it does. It does caching at either end also. http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=2374 http://www.vigor.nu/dxpc/ -- hard to find DXPC home page In any event, it is better then SSH compression alone. I imagine it can be combined with VNC too. -- --- Tom Buskey * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: X11, VNC performance (was: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question)
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 21:46, Tom Buskey wrote: http://www.vigor.nu/dxpc/ -- hard to find DXPC home page It can't be that hard to find when its the first result on google :) Adam * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: UW-IMAP performance (was: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question)
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, at 11:23pm, Derek D. Martin wrote:
For instance, the IMAP server can index the file and cache the results.
Already done. Look in the UW-IMAP documentation (I use the term loosely)
for a format that is basically mbox with a persistant index and per-message
locking. I *think* it was called MBX, but I could be wrong on that. This
is the format the UW people favor.
I'm not so sure about MMIO (seems like it would be a memory hog, but I
don't really know that much about MMIO, unfortunately).
MMIO just maps a file into virtual memory. You can basically think of it
as a transparent wrapper around read() and write() with automatic buffer
allocation. The details I'm fuzzy on. :-)
... after looking through some of the RFC's, that really just doesn't look
like fun.
After looking at any standard, implementation of anything doesn't look
like fun. :-) All those less-common and corner-cases you have to handle
take the fun out of things. Of course, implementations that cut those
corners are usually the same ones sysadmins curse on a daily basis... :-)
Basically, mbox sucks. :-)
Sure, but the alternatives do too. They just suck differently.
Heh. That applies universally. :-)
The trick is initially opening the mail store. Large Maildir mailboxes
typically take an order of magnitude longer to open than mbox files ...
In generally, any storage format that does not keep an index of important
headers is going to suck. One of the one-file-per-message formats has a
{feature, extension} which keeps a persistant index, which, IMO, is the best
way to handle things. Message listing is fast, seeking a single message is
fast, deletes are fast, writes are fast, and locking is much easier. This
method is also closest to the Unix Philosohy.
Since filesystems on Unix systems tend to minimize fragmentation by design
...
Heh! You've never seen the fragmentation stats on a busy mailspool, then!
:-)
--
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not |
| necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or |
| organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. |
*
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body.
*
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, at 7:49pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMAP works fine with server side filtering, POP doesn't. Ah, yes. I regard POP as more of a last hop delivery service than a real remote mail access protocol. POP is useful only if you need to suck a mailbox to your local mail server running IMAP. ;-) -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: UW-IMAP performance (was: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, Benjamin Scott hath spake thusly: On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, at 11:23pm, Derek D. Martin wrote: For instance, the IMAP server can index the file and cache the results. Already done. Look in the UW-IMAP documentation (I use the term loosely) for a format that is basically mbox with a persistant index and per-message locking. I *think* it was called MBX, but I could be wrong on that. This is the format the UW people favor. I've heard of it, but I don't know much about it. Reading anything that the UW people wrote gives me a headache... ;-) But I suppose I should go have a look. Even if you don't use this format, you can implement your own cache with mbox, which should speed things up drastically. Another question is how to make your mail system use the other format... By default Linux systems (at least Red Hat and Debian) use mbox. I hate reading documentation... :( I'm not so sure about MMIO (seems like it would be a memory hog, but I don't really know that much about MMIO, unfortunately). MMIO just maps a file into virtual memory. You can basically think of it as a transparent wrapper around read() and write() with automatic buffer allocation. The details I'm fuzzy on. :-) Well that much I know, but the devil's in the details. :) What makes it faster is it (as I understand it) uses the kernel's own I/O buffers, rather than copying them into seperate buffers, like the stdio functions do. The real question is memory usage, and that's up to the kernel guys. And as we know, the linux VM implementation has a lot of detractors... The reason I leave Mozilla up is so it doesn't take 3 days to load when I want to use it. The kernel guys effectively squashed that optimization... Swapping out my apps in favor of filesystem cache just seems dumb to me. I dunno... Since filesystems on Unix systems tend to minimize fragmentation by design Heh! You've never seen the fragmentation stats on a busy mailspool, then! Well, I might argue that I have, but it depends on your definition of busy... :) I do wonder though whether mbox vs. maildir has a significant impact on filesystem fragmentation. I would suspect that maildir would be worse... but I'm just specualting. - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8rzqUdjdlQoHP510RAjkyAJ0SmyNW7coXQuDQJxTRAaLz5zpZ/ACdHC2V +Tem5YfCw0zJaMTRgaCjmRc= =CkQr -END PGP SIGNATURE- * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
In a message dated: 04 Apr 2002 20:44:04 EST Kevin D. Clark said: I've used OWA before. The pages look pretty (assuming you set up your fonts correctly...), but I have a difficult time actually using this system to setup a meeting. (merely using this system to indicate that I am out of the office is a tad bit easier) Another downside of OWA is that by default you have to login *a lot*, since the sessions time out after an hour or so. On the bright side, if somebody else sets up a meeting, the Exchange system sends me an email with a URL in it that I can use to indicate my attendance at that meeting. This works pretty well. I think OWA was originally mentioned because it's a requirement for Ximian's Connect software, which allows you to integrate Evolution into an Exchange environment. I don't think that OWA was mentioned with the intention that the OP actually use OWA via a web browser, though that's definitely an option. -- Seeya, Paul * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
Thanks for all the advice, it sounds like my management may have found a way to coerce me into using Windoze (kicking and screaming all the way). If I do try to rebel though, I'm not sure if I like Bruce's better (I may have found a reason to get someone to spring for a palm): jbd jbd I keep my schedule on my palm pilot, and there's jbd lots-o-software to sync outlook with my pilot. When jbd I find that I *absolutely have to* keep some MS-centric jbd customer up to date with my calendar - I just upload my pilot jbd to it. This also works for Yahoo (and evolution - sorta). jbd or one of Paul's (they get right to the point): plussier plussier You could tell him you don't use a calendar, therefore plussier it's pointless. plussier plussier Or, you could just publish a calendar which is completely plussier filled ALL THE TIME :) plussier Right now may mail comes in on a Unix server and love it. I can check my messages from home (pine works wonderfully) and I have fetchmail running daemon mode to grab the messages off their system (saves them disk space, and me headaches). If I am forced to run Outlook I am afraid I will lose that ability - but then again, I'm not up on M$ Email. I am also afraid that, if I give in here it is just the first step into forcing me (as the cartoon once said) to be assimilated, and I've been a Unix user too long to go willingly. Oh well, all good things must come to an end... Thanks again! D. Roberts ...deleted... -- Windows - the world's MOST EXPENSIVE virus. Be sure to immunize your PC with Linux - today! * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, at 9:42am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think OWA was originally mentioned because it's a requirement for Ximian's Connect software, which allows you to integrate Evolution into an Exchange environment. Actually, no, I originally mentioned it as a possible access method from a Linux desktop. You really should try reading the messages you reply to, Paul. ;-) -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
In a message dated: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 10:16:43 EST Benjamin Scott said: On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, at 9:42am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think OWA was originally mentioned because it's a requirement for Ximian's Connect software, which allows you to integrate Evolution into an Exchange environment. Actually, no, I originally mentioned it as a possible access method from a Linux desktop. You really should try reading the messages you reply to, Paul. ;-) I thought Kenny mentioned it as a requirement to Connector? Actually, as I look at the archives, he did, but you also mentioned previously, but not in relation to Connector. So, I was half right, OWA *was* mentioned as a requirement for Connector, but it was not the original mention of it in this thread :) See, I did read the posts correctly, I just missed one of them in the thread. That's better than I normally do, at least the information I had was correct ;) -- Seeya, Paul * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly: it, other than to make changes. Using the calendar could easily be done via a variety of methods: - A second PC running Windows - If your on a Sun, using a SunPC card And don't forget dual-boot for PCs. Annoying to have to reboot, but if a second PC isn't an option, this one's still available. There's also wine, of course... - -- Derek D. Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP/GPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8rdKTdjdlQoHP510RAmw5AKCxYKQQDhFWPRbfeNo9EtDGyQm9NQCcDilQ vcYGH0ToU0HVNhUaorqnCwk= =K/yF -END PGP SIGNATURE- * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
In a message dated: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 11:36:36 EST Derek D. Martin said: And don't forget dual-boot for PCs. Annoying to have to reboot, but if a second PC isn't an option, this one's still available. There's also wine, of course... Oh yeah, one option I forgot was CodeWeaver's CrossOver Plugin's ! They use Wine as the underlying framework and have *VERY* affordable plugins you can use to run things like Office and Outlook! -- Seeya, Paul * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
In a message dated: 05 Apr 2002 14:18:43 EST Kevin D. Clark said: 2: The University of Washington IMAP server is slower than death on qualudes (for very large mailboxes) -- I am currently investigating Cyrus IMAPD (in my copious spare time...). I still plan on using procmail too -- I don't have a lot of incentive to use sieve. Yeah, Derek and I investigated this at MCLX. What Derek discovered (correct me if I'm wrong) was that UW IMAP, when deleting messages from a folder does so according to the following, very bad, process: 1. copy entire folder containing messages to be deleted to /tmp/foo (I don't remember the file name, it's something seemingly random) 2. open /tmp/foo 3. delete /tmp/foo 4. copy all messages in /tmp/foo except those to be deleted back to /var/spool/mail/pll (or, wherever it came from. 5. close /tmp/foo 3: This scheme doesn't really work well if you only have one computer. Why not? Are the forward rules you set within Exchange client side only? That's one of the things I hate about POP/IMAP. You'd think with something like Exchange the settings would be server side, it's a lot more efficient! Well, I haven't seen Redmond adobt too many good ideas in the past, why start now? :) I think that you'd be nuts to give up using Pine. Unless you're switching to an mh-based system, which IMO is better ;) -- Seeya, Paul * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
In a message dated: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 12:12:13 PST Michael Costolo said: Why not? Are the forward rules you set within Exchange client side only? You were expecting something else from them? Well, since their main competition (Lotus) allows server side forward rules, yes. However, I guess it's not overly surprising :) -- Seeya, Paul * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated: 05 Apr 2002 14:18:43 EST Kevin D. Clark said: 3: This scheme doesn't really work well if you only have one computer. Why not? If you had only a dual-boot system, and wanted to run Outlook on it while pointing it at your IMAP server (running on the same host), this would be difficult. (unless you had Wine or VMware, etc.) This is all that I was alluding to. Regards, --kevin -- Kevin D. Clark (CetaceanNetworks.com!kclark) | Cetacean Networks, Inc. | Give me a decent UNIX Portsmouth, N.H. (USA)| and I can move the world alumni.unh.edu!kdc (PGP Key Available)| * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unless you're switching to an mh-based system, which IMO is better ;) Speaking of MH-based systems, has anyone heard of an MH-compatible back end that can talk to an IMAP server? I currently use exmh on top of nmh, which sucks the mail to my local hard drive, but this doesn't work so well for remote access. When I'm on the road with my laptop, it uses too much bandwidth to ssh through my cable modem and then run exmh remotely, and the command-line nmh interface is a real pain in comparison to exmh. I figure it would be tolerable if I ran an imapd on my workstation and configured exmh to access my mailbox there via localhost. Then I could set up a simple ssh tunnel to connect from a laptop. But I don't see any imapd option for nmh. -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux Unix ICQ 28611923 / AIM abreauj / JABBER [EMAIL PROTECTED] / YAHOO abreauj Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0xD5C7B5D9 PGP-Key-Fingerprint 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99 msg13994/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
In a message dated: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 16:46:41 EST John Abreau said: Speaking of MH-based systems, has anyone heard of an MH-compatible back end that can talk to an IMAP server? Sorry, doesn't exist. This dead horse is occasionally dragged out of storage on exmh-users and summarilly beaten for good measure. From the looks of the horse, it's not going to be any time soon that this type of thing is going to be developed :( When I'm on the road with my laptop, it uses too much bandwidth to ssh through my cable modem and then run exmh remotely, Well, one option is run exmh in a VNC session which can then be connected to. One of the exmh-users members mentioned he does this. I believe there's a way to run VNC over ssh. Another option is to use something like lbx-proxy, but I doubt that'll accomplish much if the ssh compression isn't doing anything for you. and the command-line nmh interface is a real pain in comparison to exmh. Well, yeah, I supppose. I've gotten pretty used to it, and pretty adept at it so it doesn't bother me all that much anymore. You could always use mutt for when you're on the road, it understands mh-style folders to a point. I've used it before and it seemed to work fine. Of course, the big problem with mutt is that out of the box I found it to be a real pain. IMO, mutt is only worth using if you're willing to heavily customize it. For something I so seldom use, it wasn't worth the effort. I figure it would be tolerable if I ran an imapd on my workstation and configured exmh to access my mailbox there via localhost. Then I could set up a simple ssh tunnel to connect from a laptop. But I don't see any imapd option for nmh. Cuz there ain't one :( In *theory* (here we go again, this magical theory place. I really gotta move there :) the 'imp' web-ssl e-mail thingy is supposed to understand mh-style folders, but I never saw it work. It could have been a config issue, but I never looked into trying to get it to work, since I never needed to read my work e-mail from the internet. HTH, -- Seeya, Paul It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
Patrick R. McManus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I recently built UW's imap-2001a from source.. here's what its faq says: Q: Is there support for mh? A: Yes, but only as a legacy format. Your mh format INBOX is accessed by Actually, I wasn't thinking of making the imapd server use the mh mailbox. I was thinking more along the lines of swapping out parts of the back-end that exmh uses and replacing them with components that talk to an imapd server instead of using the mh mailbox. -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux Unix ICQ 28611923 / AIM abreauj / JABBER [EMAIL PROTECTED] / YAHOO abreauj Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0xD5C7B5D9 PGP-Key-Fingerprint 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99 msg13996/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
I recently built UW's imap-2001a from source.. here's what its faq says: Q: Is there support for mh? A: Yes, but only as a legacy format. Your mh format INBOX is accessed by the name #mhinbox, and all other mh format mailboxes are accessed by prefixing #mh/ to the name, e.g. #mh/foo. The mh support uses the Path: entry in your .mh_profile file to identify the root directory of your mh format mailboxes. Non-legacy use of mh format is not encouraged. There is no support for permanent flags or unique identifiers; furthermore there are known severe performance problems with the mh format. Q: Is there support for qmail and the maildir format? A: There is no support for qmail or the maildir format in our distribution, nor are there any plans to add such support. Maildir support may be available from third parties. Q: Is there support for the Cyrus mailbox format? A: No. -P [John Abreau: Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 04:46:41PM -0500] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unless you're switching to an mh-based system, which IMO is better ;) Speaking of MH-based systems, has anyone heard of an MH-compatible back end that can talk to an IMAP server? I currently use exmh on top of nmh, which sucks the mail to my local hard drive, but this doesn't work so well for remote access. When I'm on the road with my laptop, it uses too much bandwidth to ssh through my cable modem and then run exmh remotely, and the command-line nmh interface is a real pain in comparison to exmh. I figure it would be tolerable if I ran an imapd on my workstation and configured exmh to access my mailbox there via localhost. Then I could set up a simple ssh tunnel to connect from a laptop. But I don't see any imapd option for nmh. -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux Unix ICQ 28611923 / AIM abreauj / JABBER [EMAIL PROTECTED] / YAHOO abreauj Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0xD5C7B5D9 PGP-Key-Fingerprint 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99 msg13997/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, John Abreau hath spake thusly: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unless you're switching to an mh-based system, which IMO is better ;) Speaking of MH-based systems, has anyone heard of an MH-compatible back end that can talk to an IMAP server? I don't think you really want an IMAP server here... I think what you want to do is run fetchmail to fetch it to your workstation, and feed it through procmail to recvstore or whatever the appropriate mh command is. But I'm not exactly sure what problem you're trying to circumvent, so I'm not sure if this is an option for you. I'm not exactly sure what question you're asking, but it sounds like you're asking if there's an IMAP server you can use exmh with. exmh doesn't talk IMAP AFAIK, so you can't use it to access the IMAP server. UW IMAP does support MH folders, but you need to use an IMAP capable client to access them through the IMAP server. Otherwise, it wouldn't be an IMAP server... Any of this help? - -- Derek D. Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP/GPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8rh8SdjdlQoHP510RAgfeAKCOal6gwE/G3T9FWE9SUCNc9nVlrwCeIgZA AFRlb4EgZ9xfI+++gFLzvkg= =exe0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
In a message dated: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 17:01:21 EST John Abreau said: Actually, I wasn't thinking of making the imapd server use the mh mailbox. I was thinking more along the lines of swapping out parts of the back-end that exmh uses and replacing them with components that talk to an imapd server instead of using the mh mailbox. Now that's a cool idea! You might want to join exmh-users and discuss this with them, since it's also where all the exmh developers hang out. Brent Welch is always popping up there, I'm sure he'd be interested in someone doing something like this. (wanna convert exmh to perlTk while you're at it? ;) -- Seeya, Paul * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly: (wanna convert exmh to perlTk while you're at it? ;) If you're going to convert it to perl, why not just re-write it completely to use a tool kit that isn't so ugly? Gtk has perl bindings now... ;-) - -- Derek D. Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP/GPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8riA0djdlQoHP510RAtF3AKCgux+k+fML7FDaXBb5Eo7qJskmrACcD7Eq 6RmY2DcD9EnW2Z8c2gTFBWI= =pR/f -END PGP SIGNATURE- * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
In a message dated: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 17:08:10 EST John Abreau said: VNC? Ugh. Doesn't that just ship around a big pixmap of the desktop? That would chew up bandwidth a lot more than just running exmh remotely. I don't think it's that bad :) It's actually slightly better than displaying exmh remotely because the VNC protocol is a lot more compressed and faster than standard X is. -- Seeya, Paul * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
In a message dated: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 17:07:49 EST Derek D. Martin said: If you're going to convert it to perl, why not just re-write it completely to use a tool kit that isn't so ugly? Gtk has perl bindings now... ;-) Because the code size would more than triple. This horse is also dragged out on the list occasionally :) Besides, functionality matters a whole lot more than form :) -- Seeya, Paul * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
Derek D. Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think you really want an IMAP server here... I think what you want to do is run fetchmail to fetch it to your workstation, and feed it through procmail to recvstore or whatever the appropriate mh command is. But I'm not exactly sure what problem you're trying to circumvent, so I'm not sure if this is an option for you. No, that's what I'm currently doing; I pull all my mail in with fetchmail over an ssh tunnel. Exmh sits on top of a bunch of other components, including nmh, expect, glimpse, xfaces, gnupg, openldap, etc. I don't even remember all the customizations I've made to it over the years. Moving to a different MUA would be a pain, and running it remotely when I'm on the road is uncomfortably sluggish. It seems to me it would be better if I ran exmh locally on my laptop and had it access my mailbox through an ssh tunnel, without the syncing problems I'd have if I tried to maintain two separate local mailboxes. -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux Unix ICQ 28611923 / AIM abreauj / JABBER [EMAIL PROTECTED] / YAHOO abreauj Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0xD5C7B5D9 PGP-Key-Fingerprint 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99 msg14004/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
On Fri, 05 Apr 2002, John Abreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, one option is run exmh in a VNC session which can then be connected to. One of the exmh-users members mentioned he does this. I believe there's a way to run VNC over ssh. VNC? Ugh. Doesn't that just ship around a big pixmap of the desktop? That would chew up bandwidth a lot more than just running exmh remotely. I would guess bandwidth is not the problem, but rather latency. tcl/tk (aka wish, that I believe emxh is written in) is really terrible thru a remote link, not because the bandwidth is saturated, but rather all those serial ping-pong interactions with the X server. E.g. ~15 secs to map a popup menu. VNC only sends compressed diffs of the desktop, and if many of the regions are of solid color, so much the better. My guess is exmh displayed via VNC tunnelled thru ssh would have better response than exmh going thru a ssh X redir. Try it and see! I have done and continue to these sorts of things and I find them acceptable. * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
With reduced functionality you could run the mh commands standalone. I usually install mh,. On 5 Apr 2002 at 14:19, Karl J. Runge wrote: On Fri, 05 Apr 2002, John Abreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, one option is run exmh in a VNC session which can then be connected to. One of the exmh-users members mentioned he does this. I believe there's a way to run VNC over ssh. -- Jerry Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Associate Director Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
MH and IMAP (was: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question)
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, at 4:46pm, John Abreau wrote: Speaking of MH-based systems, has anyone heard of an MH-compatible back end that can talk to an IMAP server? Ah, yes. Paul Lussier and I have had this discussion. Basically, MH is both more and less than a MUA. It includes a general concept, a mail storage format specification, and a set of tools that work with said format. MH's big deal is that messages are files, and mail folders are directories. You can then apply various tools -- existing as well as MH-specific -- to them. Basically, it applies the Unix Philosophy to email. Neat-o. You can write an IMAP server that understands the MH storage format easily enough. The problem is, your nifty MH mail folders become just another IMAP server at that point. Now comes the clincher. MH is both more *and less* than an MUA. There is no single back end you can add IMAP support to. The whole point of MH is that mail is in the filesystem. So MH goes poof, and you need to use a different MUA (one that speaks IMAP). If you follow this to its logical conclusion, there are two ways to approach remote access to an MH mail store: One is a traditional remote filesystem mount. NFS or SMB or whatever. You mount the filesystem containing your MH store on your remote host, and then you can use it just like your always do. Two potential problems here: One is that this kind of remote filesystem is usually not done over a WAN like the Internet, due to a long list of reasons: Security, latency, security, performance, security, reliability, security, etc. The other is that NFS locking, traditionally, sucks. Things could get ugly if new mail came in while you were accessing your inbox. The second approach is more... interesting: You implement an IMAP client as a filesystem driver. As weird as that sounds, it has a number of advantages. You eliminate all the issues surrounding a full remote filesystem. IMAP is more light-weight than a full remote filesystem. You only expose an email protocol on the server-side. You can take advantage of existing IMAP authentication and encryption mechanisms. Perhaps most interesting of all, though, is that this would let you use MH with *any mail server that speaks IMAP*. IMAP is the lingua franca of email. All the various Unix mail formats have IMAP servers for them. Most commercial, proprietary systems do as well -- MS Exchange, Novell GroupWise, Lotus Notes, etc. I am sure anyone who prefers MH would love to be able to apply it to their corporate Exchange server. Implementation of this idea is left as an exercise to the reader. :-) -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
UW-IMAP performance (was: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question)
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, at 2:51pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The University of Washington IMAP server is slower than death on qualudes (for very large mailboxes) Yeah, Derek and I investigated this at MCLX. What Derek discovered (correct me if I'm wrong) was that UW IMAP, when deleting messages from a folder does so according to the following, very bad, process: It is actually worse than that. A Berkeley/mbox format mail store is basically a flat text file. Messages are appended one after another. There is no index. To read message number #368, you have to read and parse messages 1 through 367, too. And you have to do that every time you open the mail store. This gets really ugly if you have a large number of messages, or very large messages (think file attachments). To compound the problem, many IMAP clients disconnect and reconnect very frequently. When it comes to deletes, the process of moving the mailbox to /tmp is stupid, but the rest of it is unavoidable. If you delete a message from a an mbox mail store, you have to rewrite the whole file, just like you do for any other text file. Basically, mbox sucks. :-) -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, at 2:51pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why not? Are the forward rules you set within Exchange client side only? No. The rules can and do execute on the Exchange server. That's one of the things I hate about POP/IMAP. Huh? I use procmail and IMAP both without problems. Please explain. -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
X11, VNC performance (was: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question)
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, at 2:19pm, Karl J. Runge wrote: VNC? Ugh. Doesn't that just ship around a big pixmap of the desktop? That would chew up bandwidth a lot more than just running exmh remotely. I would guess bandwidth is not the problem, but rather latency. Karl Runge is on the right track. X is very senstive to latency. The bandwidth requirements can actually be fairly minor for simple constructs (e.g., a GNU Emacs window), but a high-latency link will kill you. As far as VNC goes, yes, it basically ships a big pixmap of the desktop to the remote station. In fact, the VNC protocol is RFB, or remote frame buffer. However, there are a number of optimizations. Standard (from ATT) VNC will only send changes to the buffer, and uses run-legth encoding to make solid color blocks go quickly. TightVNC (http://www.tightvnc.com) adds more advanced compression (based on JPEG, I believe), plus client-side mouse handling. It is very usable, even over comparatively low-bandwidth links. I highly recommend it. -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
In a message dated: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 19:35:17 EST Benjamin Scott said: That's one of the things I hate about POP/IMAP. Huh? I use procmail and IMAP both without problems. Please explain. Sorry, I wasn't explicit enough. Please allow me to rephrase: Client side filtering is one of the things I hate to suffer with when there is no access to the server. IMAP works fine with server side filtering, POP doesn't. Which then requires the use of fetchmail to drag your mail local, thereby defeating the point of a centralized mail store accessible from anywhere. -- Seeya, Paul * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: UW-IMAP performance (was: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, Benjamin Scott hath spake thusly: A Berkeley/mbox format mail store is basically a flat text file. Being dissatisfied with the performance of UW IMAP, I've been thinking a lot about this problem. I've got some ideas about how to make some (potentially drastic, I think) performance improvements. Messages are appended one after another. There is no index. To read message number #368, you have to read and parse messages 1 through 367, too. And you have to do that every time you open the mail store. This doesn't necessarily need to be true, strictly speaking. You certainly do need to read the whole file to parse all the messages, at least once, but you don't necessarily need to do it every time you open the mail store. For instance, the IMAP server can index the file and cache the results. It then only needs to update the cache when it detects the mail store has changed. It can retain this cache on disk (perhaps only writing the cache out to disk when it closes a store), with information that will allow it to determine whether the file has changed since the cache was created, to improve performance. On the other hand, I'm not really sure what sort of performance impact there'd be if the particluar mail store was very high volume... This gets really ugly if you have a large number of messages, or very large messages (think file attachments). To compound the problem, many IMAP clients disconnect and reconnect very frequently. Under the above scenario, the penalty for this can be minimized... When it comes to deletes, the process of moving the mailbox to /tmp is stupid, but the rest of it is unavoidable. If you delete a message from a an mbox mail store, you have to rewrite the whole file, just like you do for any other text file. This also is not strictly true. You can rewrite the file in place, and then you need only re-write messages that come after deleted messages. This has some interesting implications. As most old messages in a mailbox tend to be messages that the mail user wants to keep around, most messages which get deleted in a given session tend to be towards the end of the mail store. This means that deleting messages from the store can have much less of a penalty than they often do in some implementations. There are two ways (that I can think of) to do this re-writing. The technique for both is basically the same, though the mechanism is slightly different. Also, note that this only needs to be done when the client performs an EXPUNGE. Depending on what protocol you're using, you might be able to get away with simply marking a deleted message as such in memory, without modifying the physical mail store at all, until the mailbox is expunged or closed, depending on the protocol. The technique is to create a buffer which is the size of the message being deleted. Then move messages which are not being deleted down in the file in chunks of the size of the buffer. As you encounter more deleted messages, you can increase the size of the buffer, so that more of the mail store is re-written at once. Obviously you need to make adjustments for when the next chunk is less than the size of your buffer, or when you're crossing the boundary of a message that is being deleted... The two mechanisms to do this would be MMIO, or use the appropriate combinations of fseek, fread, and fwrite. The first method would likely be faster on machines with sufficient memory, but might suffer from swapping problems on machines with little memory. The second method is less prone to paging. Deciding which to use would likely involve experimentation, or providing both and using run-time information to determine which is more appropriate to the situation. Now, whether or not these methods improve performance over what UW IMAP does, I can't say. Though I suspect that they can't help but do so ;-) Also, the second method basically guarantees the server would use both less disk space and less memory. I'm not so sure about MMIO (seems like it would be a memory hog, but I don't really know that much about MMIO, unfortunately). I keep meaning to write a library to implement this, in order to compare, but I never seem to get around to it. Ultimately, I would want to use these in an implementation of an IMAP server with which I might replace UW IMAP, but that means I'd need to implement the IMAP protocol, and after looking through some of the RFC's, that really just doesn't look like fun. ;-) Basically, mbox sucks. :-) Sure, but the alternatives do too. They just suck differently. They do have significant benefits over mbox. They generally don't suffer from locking issues, as there's basically no need to lock at all with message-per-file mailbox formats. They also make writes (e.g. deletes) much faster. The trick is initially opening the mail store. Large Maildir mailboxes typically take an order
Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
OK, I'm stumped. I have been running Linux for over 3 years here (longer overall, but I've only been here for 3 years, 6 months, ...) and have run into something I am not sure how to fix - guess I'm not up on my Micro$oft tools. I have worked in predominantly Unix environments since leaving the VMS world back in '92 so I have had little exposure to the new Windoze tools. I rec'd this today from my manager, and I'm not sure what he means, much less how to fix it. All I know about Outlook is it's reputation for attracting viruses so PLEASE don't say I have to break down and run NT - I just might have to find a new employer... ;-) Original Message Subject: RE: [Fwd: ...deleted... meeting] Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:41:50 -0500 Hi Dave, You're also the only person in the dept. who doesn't have their availability on Outlook set accordingly. Could you please correct? thanks ...deleted... * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, at 4:55pm, David Roberts wrote: I rec'd this today from my manager, and I'm not sure what he means, much less how to fix it. He means you have not indicated your availability for scheduling (e.g., for meetings). Outlook has various features for calendar and scheduling which can be quite powerful, if used properly (they rarely are). ... PLEASE don't say I have to break down and run NT ... AFAIK, the only interface to the calendar portions of Outlook is Outlook. Sorry. Actually, that is not quite true. If you run Exchange, there is something called Outlook Web Access (OWA), which, as you can probably guess, is a web-based interface to Exchange. I am not sure how much functionality is available in it, though. -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
The Availability feature in Outlook is based on the Scheduling system that is built into Exchange. There is nothing that you can do other than run Windoze. Ximian, did, however, just come out with a product called Ximian Connector That will allow you to connect to an Exchange server if you use the Ximian Evolution mail client (http://www.ximian.com/products/connector/). However, the Exchange server *MUST* be Exchange 2000, and it has to have the OWA (outlook Web Access) module installed and running. C-Ya, Kenny On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 16:55, David Roberts wrote: OK, I'm stumped. I have been running Linux for over 3 years here (longer overall, but I've only been here for 3 years, 6 months, ...) and have run into something I am not sure how to fix - guess I'm not up on my Micro$oft tools. I have worked in predominantly Unix environments since leaving the VMS world back in '92 so I have had little exposure to the new Windoze tools. I rec'd this today from my manager, and I'm not sure what he means, much less how to fix it. All I know about Outlook is it's reputation for attracting viruses so PLEASE don't say I have to break down and run NT - I just might have to find a new employer... ;-) Original Message Subject: RE: [Fwd: ...deleted... meeting] Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:41:50 -0500 Hi Dave, You're also the only person in the dept. who doesn't have their availability on Outlook set accordingly. Could you please correct? thanks ...deleted... * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. * -- Tact is just *not* saying true stuff -- Cordelia Chase Kenneth E. Lussier Sr. Systems Administrator Zuken, USA PGP KeyID CB254DD0 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCB254DD0 * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 17:06, Benjamin Scott wrote: Actually, that is not quite true. If you run Exchange, there is something called Outlook Web Access (OWA), which, as you can probably guess, is a web-based interface to Exchange. I am not sure how much functionality is available in it, though. OWA is literally feature-for-feature identical (including bugs and virii) to Outlook. It is a web-page that looks exactly like Outlook. C-Ya, Kenny -- Tact is just *not* saying true stuff -- Cordelia Chase Kenneth E. Lussier Sr. Systems Administrator Zuken, USA PGP KeyID CB254DD0 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCB254DD0 * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
Without commenting on the internal politics of your company. Many companies have standardized on Microsoft Outlook. First, find out exactly what he is talking about. If you must run Outlook, I would suggest that you look at Codeweaver's crossover office (which is a much improved wine) and install MS Office so you can run those tools when necessary. Or you could get a copy of Win4Lin or VMWare and run Windows on your Linux box. IMHO, the CrossoverOffice solution is the cheapest in terms of $$$ as well as system resources. (http://www.codeweavers.com). On 4 Apr 2002 at 16:55, David Roberts wrote: OK, I'm stumped. I have been running Linux for over 3 years here (longer overall, but I've only been here for 3 years, 6 months, ...) and have run into something I am not sure how to fix - guess I'm not up on my Micro$oft tools. I have worked in predominantly Unix environments since leaving the VMS world back in '92 so I have had little exposure to the new Windoze tools. I rec'd this today from my manager, and I'm not sure what he means, much less how to fix it. All I know about Outlook is it's reputation for attracting viruses so PLEASE don't say I have to break down and run NT - I just might have to find a new employer... ;-) Original Message Subject: RE: [Fwd: ...deleted... meeting] Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:41:50 -0500 Hi Dave, You're also the only person in the dept. who doesn't have their availability on Outlook set accordingly. Could you please correct? thanks ...deleted... * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. * -- Jerry Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Associate Director Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Jerry Feldman wrote: Without commenting on the internal politics of your company. Many companies have standardized on Microsoft Outlook. First, find out exactly what he is talking about. If you must run Outlook, I would suggest that you look at Codeweaver's crossover office (which is a much improved wine) and install MS Office so you can run those tools when necessary. Or you could get a copy of Win4Lin or VMWare and run Windows on your Linux box. IMHO, the CrossoverOffice solution is the cheapest in terms of $$$ as well as system resources. (http://www.codeweavers.com). I was going to suggest that as well. It does work, though it's not perfect and can be a little sluggish at times. The other option that might be open to you is to use a Win2K/NT40 terminal server. FWIW w2k (at least advanced server) has this built in for 'administrative' functions. I use the Linux rdesktop client and it works quiet nicely. One thing MS did get right with this is that you can disconnect w/o ending your session, then reconnect to it later. --rdp -- Rich Payne http://talisman.mv.com * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
In a message dated: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:55:49 EST David Roberts said: Original Message Subject: RE: [Fwd: ...deleted... meeting] Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:41:50 -0500 Hi Dave, You're also the only person in the dept. who doesn't have their availability on Outlook set accordingly. Could you please correct? thanks You could tell him you don't use a calendar, therefore it's pointless. Or, you could just publish a calendar which is completely filled ALL THE TIME :) -- Seeya, Paul * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
OK. I have a really bizarre solution for you - and it usually works for me... I keep my schedule on my palm pilot, and there's lots-o-software to sync outlook with my pilot. When I find that I *absolutely have to* keep some MS-centric customer up to date with my calendar - I just upload my pilot to it. This also works for Yahoo (and evolution - sorta). The only problem is that most of the sync packages don't let me sync just a particular category, so the customer gets a lot of stuff they shouldn't, which I have to delete. Recently I've taken to keeping my public calendar on Yahoo!, and just syncing that with the customer's outlook. Saves on time mousing around with windows. --Bruce David Roberts wrote: OK, I'm stumped. I have been running Linux for over 3 years here (longer overall, but I've only been here for 3 years, 6 months, ...) and have run into something I am not sure how to fix - guess I'm not up on my Micro$oft tools. I have worked in predominantly Unix environments since leaving the VMS world back in '92 so I have had little exposure to the new Windoze tools. I rec'd this today from my manager, and I'm not sure what he means, much less how to fix it. All I know about Outlook is it's reputation for attracting viruses so PLEASE don't say I have to break down and run NT - I just might have to find a new employer... ;-) Original Message Subject: RE: [Fwd: ...deleted... meeting] Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:41:50 -0500 Hi Dave, You're also the only person in the dept. who doesn't have their availability on Outlook set accordingly. Could you please correct? thanks ...deleted... * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. * * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
Benjamin Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually, that is not quite true. If you run Exchange, there is something called Outlook Web Access (OWA), which, as you can probably guess, is a web-based interface to Exchange. I am not sure how much functionality is available in it, though. I've used OWA before. The pages look pretty (assuming you set up your fonts correctly...), but I have a difficult time actually using this system to setup a meeting. (merely using this system to indicate that I am out of the office is a tad bit easier) Another downside of OWA is that by default you have to login *a lot*, since the sessions time out after an hour or so. On the bright side, if somebody else sets up a meeting, the Exchange system sends me an email with a URL in it that I can use to indicate my attendance at that meeting. This works pretty well. (luckily, I don't have an overwhelming number of meetings...) If the original poster happens to be using Sun/Solaris (yes, I see that the subject line reads Linux), he might want to check out Sun's sunpci cards. These are basically a complete PC on a card, and you can run Win2K on these cards and display the output inside a window in X. --kevin -- Kevin D. Clark (CetaceanNetworks.com!kclark) | Cetacean Networks, Inc. | Give me a decent UNIX Portsmouth, N.H. (USA)| and I can move the world alumni.unh.edu!kdc (PGP Key Available)| * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Linux-Outlook (ouch) question
I'm thinkin' what you need is this: *** Ximian Connector is an optional add-in to Ximian Evolution that is now available for purchase. With Ximian Connector installed, Ximian Evolution functions as a Microsoft Exchange 2000 client, seamlessly integrated with Exchange calendaring and other mail storage and mail handling features. *** It's called the Ximian connector, and it's an addin for Evolution. Read about it here: http://www.ximian.com/products/connector/ Hopefully this will get you what you need without setting up anything Microsoft. Rich Cloutier SYSTEM SUPPORT SERVICES President, C*O www.sysupport.com * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
