On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 21:02:21 -0400 (EDT) Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Andy Bradford wrote:
>
> > I agree that having a cookie is not the best solution for this
> > problem... Maybe it would be acceptable to have "Back" and "Refresh"
> > buttons in the frame so that the user doesn't have to "think" as much.
> > :-) What do you think about something like this?
>
> What I think about it is that I will have to think about it. There are
> several solutions worth exploring. I'm thinking of one way to get the
> browser's refresh button to work reliably, but I will need to think
> through all the security implications of it.
>
>
> --
> Sam
>
>
--end of quoted text--
This is actually what I was trying to express when I said that it would
be nice if there was some html in the screen that allowed the user to refresh
the screen (or go back). My fault.
When the user support group at ucr tested sqwebmail, several threatened
to quit if we made it our webmail system, mostly on the basis of the
users getting frustrated whenever they hit refresh. And by frustrated, I mean
the kind of frustrated a bird gets when it pecks at the bird in the mirror and
wonder why that bird never gets tired and always does exactly what it is doing.
I probably should have given them a version of sqwebmail modified to not do
frames. They have no interest in security if it gets in the way of anything
at all, and I have no desire to support the steaming pile of poop they would
choose because that poop is bright and shiny. (they did end up requesting
and receiving mailspinner, to the tune of 22 grand a year + 5.8 each year
after that for renewal). It would have been a very cozy microsoft type
arrangement.
Not that I actually mind; I didn't really want to support that userbase, but
at the same time, without a bozo friendly application, there is the likelyhood
of the betamaxification of sqwebmail. And again that may not be a big deal.
I use a webmail product that has a userbase of 1.5 (I use it and 2 of my friends
use it once every several months when they are on vacation). But this webmail
product is written in bourne shell and runs on a dec ultrix 4.3 system, so it
is about as marginalized as it can be already.
Hopefully that is not the path that sqwebmail hopes to follow, since it is
by far the best of the webmail systems that I've looked at.
chris
