A milter such as mimedefang could allow you to do filtering on a per-user
basis on the mta level, if you are willing to write a lot of (perl in case
of mimedefang) code. Actually, this is implemented in the commercial
solution based on mimedefang, canit-pro (roaringpenguin.com) : each user can
have
--On 9 July 2009 12:56:24 -0400 "Greg A. Woods"
wrote:
> At Thu, 9 Jul 2009 10:39:28 -0500, Mike Eggleston
> wrote: Subject: sieve configuration (was Automatically moving marked
> mails?)
>>
>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009, Greg A. Woods might have said:
>> >
&
--On 9 July 2009 11:51:32 -0400 "Greg A. Woods"
wrote:
> At Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:46:42 +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> Subject: Re: Automatically moving marked mails?
>>
>> There
>> probably aren't any SIEVE implementations that do what I suggest, and
>
--On 9 July 2009 11:27:55 -0400 Jorey Bump wrote:
> Ian Eiloart wrote, at 07/09/2009 10:46 AM:
>>
>> --On 9 July 2009 09:54:31 -0400 Adam Tauno Williams
>> wrote:
>>
> Ian Eiloart wrote, at 07/09/2009 05:39 AM:
>> Except that the sieve server ought to be on the border MTA, so that
>>>
At Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:27:55 -0400, Jorey Bump wrote:
Subject: Re: Automatically moving marked mails?
>
> Ian Eiloart wrote, at 07/09/2009 10:46 AM:
> >
> > Not true. The MTA can decide *per recipient* whether to accept mail from a
> > specific sender.
>
>
At Thu, 9 Jul 2009 10:39:28 -0500, Mike Eggleston wrote:
Subject: sieve configuration (was Automatically moving marked mails?)
>
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009, Greg A. Woods might have said:
> >
> > (even use of the vacation feature is questionable, especially since it's
> &
At Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:46:42 +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote:
Subject: Re: Automatically moving marked mails?
>
> There
> probably aren't any SIEVE implementations that do what I suggest, and the
> implementations wouldn't be simple, but there's no principled reason th
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009, Greg A. Woods might have said:
> (even use of the vacation feature is questionable, especially since it's
> not usually configured in the proper way)
And what is the proper way to configure Sieve and vacation?
Mike
Cyrus Home Page: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/
Cyrus
At Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:39:54 +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote:
Subject: Re: Automatically moving marked mails?
>
> Except that the sieve server ought to be on the border MTA, so that the
> user can tell the server to reject the message at SMTP time.
Except that's not what Sieve is for.
Ian Eiloart wrote, at 07/09/2009 10:46 AM:
>
> --On 9 July 2009 09:54:31 -0400 Adam Tauno Williams
> wrote:
>
Ian Eiloart wrote, at 07/09/2009 05:39 AM:
> Except that the sieve server ought to be on the border MTA, so that the
> user can tell the server to reject the message at SMT
--On 9 July 2009 09:54:31 -0400 Adam Tauno Williams
wrote:
>>> Ian Eiloart wrote, at 07/09/2009 05:39 AM:
Except that the sieve server ought to be on the border MTA, so that the
user can tell the server to reject the message at SMTP time.
>>> That's not feasible for mail with multipl
>> Ian Eiloart wrote, at 07/09/2009 05:39 AM:
>>> Except that the sieve server ought to be on the border MTA, so that the
>>> user can tell the server to reject the message at SMTP time.
>> That's not feasible for mail with multiple recipients.
> It is if your rule is to reject all email from a spe
--On 9 July 2009 09:15:32 -0400 Jorey Bump wrote:
> Ian Eiloart wrote, at 07/09/2009 05:39 AM:
>
>> Except that the sieve server ought to be on the border MTA, so that the
>> user can tell the server to reject the message at SMTP time.
>
> That's not feasible for mail with multiple recipients.
Ian Eiloart wrote, at 07/09/2009 05:39 AM:
> Except that the sieve server ought to be on the border MTA, so that the
> user can tell the server to reject the message at SMTP time.
That's not feasible for mail with multiple recipients.
Cyrus Home Page: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/
Cyrus Wi
--On 8 July 2009 12:04:05 -0400 "Greg A. Woods"
wrote:
>
> What would be better for any and all IMAP MUAs would be a rules editor
> to write and edit Sieve rules and which would work with Cyrus IMAP for
> managing server-side filtering (but I personally wouldn't use it either
> -- I'd just edi
At Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:58:37 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams
wrote:
Subject: Re: Automatically moving marked mails?
>
> Because they are both about collaboration (communication) so users,
> correctly, put them in the same bucket conceptually. And clients have
> been bundling this funct
This is getting way off topic now, but I'm not sure how best to reply
privately to you.
At Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:57:23 -0400, Jorey Bump wrote:
Subject: Re: Automatically moving marked mails?
>
> I disagree. Apple Mail has some fundamental usability issues that need
> to be address
Ian Eiloart wrote, at 07/07/2009 12:20 PM:
>
> --On 7 July 2009 09:57:23 -0400 Jorey Bump wrote:
>
>> I disagree. Apple Mail has some fundamental usability issues that need
>> to be addressed. Every time I try it out, I can't get past the fact that
>> there's no easy way to step through all unre
--On 7 July 2009 09:57:23 -0400 Jorey Bump wrote:
>> Personally I'd suggest Mac OSX and Apple Mail as a first cut for anyone
>> who wants an easy-to-manage and easy-to-use, and half-decent MUA.
>>
>> It doesn't do everything I want to do as a hyper-experienced e-mail
>> user, nor is it apparent
Greg A. Woods wrote, at 07/06/2009 05:42 PM:
> Personally I'd suggest Mac OSX and Apple Mail as a first cut for anyone
> who wants an easy-to-manage and easy-to-use, and half-decent MUA.
>
> It doesn't do everything I want to do as a hyper-experienced e-mail
> user, nor is it apparently easy to w
> > For an integrated email and calendar tool?
> After all these years I still fail to see what e-mail and calendar
> keeping have to do with each other. It's lunacy to put them in the same
> tool. Use the right tool for the job.
Because they are both about collaboration (communication) so users
--On 6 July 2009 17:42:04 -0400 "Greg A. Woods"
wrote:
> At Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:40:44 +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> Subject: Re: Automatically moving marked mails?
>>
>> Suggestions?
>
> The answers will depend entirely on what platform one chooses and what
At Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:40:44 +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote:
Subject: Re: Automatically moving marked mails?
>
> Suggestions?
The answers will depend entirely on what platform one chooses and what
requirements one has for e-mail use.
Personally I'd suggest Mac OSX and Apple Mail as a fi
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 10:40 +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> --On 3 July 2009 14:09:19 -0400 "Greg A. Woods"
> wrote:
> >> There's pressure here to move to Exchange because it supports Outlook
> >> better.
> > Take away Outlook in effect by giving them better and different open
> > source and open sta
Ian Eiloart wrote:
--On 3 July 2009 14:09:19 -0400 "Greg A. Woods"
wrote:
There's pressure here to move to Exchange because it supports Outlook
better.
Take away Outlook in effect by giving them better and different open
source and open standards tools and that pressure is sure to
Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
> --On 3 July 2009 14:09:19 -0400 "Greg A. Woods"
> wrote:
>
>>> There's pressure here to move to Exchange because it supports Outlook
>>> better.
>> Take away Outlook in effect by giving them better and different open
>> source and open standards tools and that pressure is
--On 3 July 2009 14:09:19 -0400 "Greg A. Woods"
wrote:
>
>> There's pressure here to move to Exchange because it supports Outlook
>> better.
>
> Take away Outlook in effect by giving them better and different open
> source and open standards tools and that pressure is sure to go away.
Suggest
At Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:00:20 +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote:
Subject: Re: Automatically moving marked mails?
>
> Outlook users here don't like the fact that some of their MUA functionality
> is greyed out.
I suppose that's evidence of part of the problem -- what's greyed out
At Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:25:06 -0500, Gary Mills wrote:
Subject: Re: Automatically moving marked mails?
>
> There's pressure here too to move from Cyrus to Microsoft Exchange.
> It seems to be coming from administrators rather than students.
>
> Is there someplace an unbiased c
> I don't like these "all in one solutions", but the people here LIKE
> THEIR OUTLOOK! Everybody wants to use Outlook and our students want
> Google, they like Gogle! Safe harbour for personal data? not
> interesting to this youth which even posts pictures of their drunk
> parties on facebo
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 09:25 -0500, Gary Mills wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 01:02:35AM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > I really don't know anyone, neither amongst home-based users nor
> > corporate e-mail users, who truly believe they're better off with an
> > MS-Exchange server handling their e
Ian Eiloart wrote:
> I was speaking to a friend who provides Exchange servers for small
> businesses locally. He says that the most important thing is to have a
> really good (fast, available and accurate) disaster recovery procedure,
> because you need it a lot.
>
Here in Germany we have a
--On 3 July 2009 09:25:06 -0500 Gary Mills wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 01:02:35AM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
>>
>> I really don't know anyone, neither amongst home-based users nor
>> corporate e-mail users, who truly believe they're better off with an
>> MS-Exchange server handling their
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 01:02:35AM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
>
> I really don't know anyone, neither amongst home-based users nor
> corporate e-mail users, who truly believe they're better off with an
> MS-Exchange server handling their e-mail, especially if they've
> previously used a decent IM
--On 3 July 2009 01:02:35 -0400 "Greg A. Woods"
wrote:
> At Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:26:16 -, "jul...@precisium.com"
> wrote: Subject: Re: Automatically moving marked
> mails?
>>
>> In the present commercial environment - they are more likely to &
At Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:26:16 -, "jul...@precisium.com"
wrote:
Subject: Re: Automatically moving marked mails?
>
> In the present commercial environment - they are more likely to "learn"
> (with the not so subtle help of certain consultants),
> that their
> The kind of functionality you want could be achieved more elegantly and
> more usefully by implementing lemonade-imap-sieve (sieve-like scripting
> on the imap operation level, not only on delivery, see
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lemonade-imap-sieve-05).
That would be very useful; b
> It's true that the concept of delete/expunge is difficult for many new
> users to grasp. In my experience, the worst consequence is when users
> who delete but never expunge exceed quota and don't know why because
> deleted messages are hidden from view. A visual indicator (such as a
> strike-thr
jul...@precisium.com a écrit :
>
> I'd dare suggest some sort of ugly hack whereby an MUA need only create a
> special folder named e.g
> "_deleteto_Deleted Items" .. which doesn't even need to be subscribed to.
>
> The existence of such a folder would tell the server to move 'deleted'
> mail
On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:46:00 -, Jorey Bump wrote:
> jul...@precisium.com wrote, at 07/01/2009 05:26 PM:
>
>> Personally I agree it would be nice if Cyrus would do something
>> to compensate for the deletion issue - but I can understand if there is
>> a
>> reluctance on the part of the devel
jul...@precisium.com wrote, at 07/01/2009 05:26 PM:
> Personally I agree it would be nice if Cyrus would do something
> to compensate for the deletion issue - but I can understand if there is a
> reluctance on the part of the developers to do this.
This issue involves the IMAP protocol and is
On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:48:41 -, Greg A. Woods
wrote:
> At Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:35:15 +0200, Garry wrote:
> Subject: Re: Automatically moving marked mails?
>>
>> The point is not when decent MUAs are used, like Thunderbird, but rather
>> crap like Outlook ... which
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 14:48 -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> At Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:35:15 +0200, Garry wrote:
> Subject: Re: Automatically moving marked mails?
> > The point is not when decent MUAs are used, like Thunderbird, but rather
> > crap like Outlook ... which is una
At Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:35:15 +0200, Garry wrote:
Subject: Re: Automatically moving marked mails?
>
> The point is not when decent MUAs are used, like Thunderbird, but rather
> crap like Outlook ... which is unable to do a decent, logical handling
> of deleted mails... ;)
Dec
Marc Patermann wrote:
> Garry,
>
> Garry schrieb:
>
>
>> in order to fix a customer's wrong perception of how a mail server
>> should work, I was wondering:
>>
>> Is there a way to make Cyrus IMAP move marked-for-deletion mails to a
>> trash folder, effectively purging it from the original folde
Garry,
Garry schrieb:
> in order to fix a customer's wrong perception of how a mail server
> should work, I was wondering:
>
> Is there a way to make Cyrus IMAP move marked-for-deletion mails to a
> trash folder, effectively purging it from the original folder?
If I look in my MUA (Thunderbird),
Hi,
in order to fix a customer's wrong perception of how a mail server
should work, I was wondering:
Is there a way to make Cyrus IMAP move marked-for-deletion mails to a
trash folder, effectively purging it from the original folder?
Tnx, -garry
Cyrus Home Page: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu
47 matches
Mail list logo
