Care to expand on that?
BTW, my generalization was based on the assumption that the majority of
IMail owners were small-medium businesses and small Web hosters (many
of which do design and programming primarily). Adding more boxes would
mean doubling my server administration. I totally understand though if
someone has a lot of accounts and/or traffic, but for us small guys,
oversizing a box is pretty inexpensive to do...it's the redundancy that
costs money. [knock on wood]
Anyway, it seems that most would allow a separate Web server to map a
directory on the mail server should it come down to that. Being
dependent on just one type Web server would seem to be more problematic.
Matt
ISPhuset Nordic AS wrote:
Message
Well I can only speek for my self and i would
NEVER again host everything on the same server
Well, you can't always have it all :)
Using IMail's Web server would seem like the most global choice,
however I have not come across information about it supporting anything
besides their own special tags and it doesn't seem like a friendly
environment to work in. Does anyone know if this supports some sort of
CGI besides the built in tags? Designing with IIS though would be a
breeze, but not everyone hosts on the same box they do E-mail on, and
gaining access to the files would require manual intervention to setup
(and a network). Putting another Web server on the box seems like
overkill maybe and won't allow the same degree of flexibility for most,
however this might be the most universal approach.
I wonder what the majority calling is for. I'm guessing that most host
on the same box as their Web server, and most use IIS. I suppose that
it should be designed in IIS to be as independent as possible from that
environment and then ported to a stand-alone Web server if popular
enough. That's something that I would ask my programmer about how best
to do. I don't know how the guy does it, but he literally knows
everything and has worked in virtually every environment with every
language. He also makes everyone around him look lazy :)
John, I see that you have done some of this stuff, as well as many
others. I'm wondering why with all the interest, it hasn't yet been
done? Also, if Scott is going to do this himself, I'm wondering if
there is any estimate as to when it might become available. I'd hate
to spend any time doing this for him to then come out with a solution.
It looks like a daunting task if you try to allow for every possible
configuration from global to domain to user. Maybe it would be better
just to write a Hello World script instead and watch some TV with my
spare time...
Matt
John Tolmachoff (Lists) wrote:
I think you hit the nail on the head on the differences on how this is to be
done.
Some want to be able to load on the same machine not using IIS, some want
IIS.
Some want to be able to load on a different machine not using IIS, some want
IIS.
John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA
Engineer/Consultant
eServices For You
www.eservicesforyou.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of ISPhuset Nordic AS
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] User Interface
Sure this would be nice but pls do not use IIS as a webserver for doing
this
it would be muxh better having a standalone thing which we can set the
port for us
self with so many different configs that woule be
the best
Benny
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matthew Bramble
Sent: 1. september 2003 17:59
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] User Interface
I'm very interested in this myself, the only thing that is stopping me
is knowing what future plans that Scott might have for his configuration
files and how that might impact the design.
I can see that there have been a good deal of other folks designing
interfaces from a search of the archives, however most seem somewhat
proprietary to their needs and I would like to see something that was
more flexible and probably cover other things like Declude Virus as well.
Personally, it's my view that my end users generally have no clue about
spam control, or even that is enabled on their accounts, and giving them
configuration capabilities would confuse them, or at least something
beyond giving them three levels of scoring and the option to turn it
off. I would want to see something with per-domain and global settings
(depending on your version), and maybe extend the product by creating
something like digest notification for instance.
Does anyone think that there's enough interest in developing such a
thing(s) for someone to make some money from a reasonably priced
add-on? I've got a programmer that could handle this stuff in his sleep
:)
Please chime in.
Matt
Jeff Kratka wrote:
There was talk awhile ago about some people creating a web user
interface
for Declude. Did anyone come up with one?
Jeff
*****************************************************
TymeWyse Internet
P.O.Box 84 - 583 N. Main St., Canyonville, OR 97417
tel/fax: (541) 839-6027 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*****************************************************
|
